Wednesday, October 04, 2006

Two sets of parking rules for one street

Campaigner takes on council over 26 tickets
The Journal
Wednesday, October 4, 2006
By Ross Smith







EVIDENCE: Campaigner Neil Herron arrives at Sunderland City Library to contest the validity of 26 parking tickets he has deliberately collected.









An independent parking adjudicator yesterday said he would "need a lot of convincing" that a North council was acting lawfully after hearing it had two separate sets of traffic rules for the same stretch of street.

The claim came in a tribunal at which campaigner Neil Herron is appealing against 26 tickets he has deliberately collected around Sunderland.

Mr Herron used the hearing to bring up a series of flaws he claims could bring down the entire parking regime in the city centre.
On one road, Frederick Street West, the council admitted it had two separate traffic orders in place - one imposing 'no waiting' restrictions, while the other made provision for parking bays.
The adjudicator, Andrew Keenan, asked the council: "You can't have that, can you? How can the motorists possibly know what's going on?"
Council parking services officer Earl Belshaw said the 'no waiting' restriction "sits underneath" the parking bays. But Mr Keenan told him: "I'll need a lot of convincing on that."
Mr Herron also claimed that in an area around St Thomas Street, the traffic order provided only for a single yellow line running across a series of junctions, without gaps. But barrister Stephen Sauvain, on behalf of Sunderland Council, said: "It must be a matter of common sense. Nobody is being misled as to what they can do."
Mr Herron claims flaws in the system make the whole controlled parking zone, which sets out waiting restrictions in the entire city centre, invalid.
A consultants' report prepared before the council took control of parking enforcement in 2003 identified more than 300 potential errors with signs, markings and traffic orders. The council said last year many still had not been put right.
A decision on the appeals was deferred by Mr Keenan. Mr Herron faces a four-figure fine if he loses the appeals.

And the evidence grows ....
Rarely can a simple parking ticket ever have caused so much havoc, as at yesterday's tribunal.
The signs of the legal wrangles to come were there when Neil Herron entered the room carrying a dozen files stuffed full of evidence.
Ten minutes into the hearing, fellow campaigner Colin Moran walked in beneath a further stack. "Is Rachel on her way with the other three bundles?" Mr Herron asked him, as the adjudicator, Mr Keenan, visibly paled.
Mr Herron may fail in his attempt to undermine the parking regime in Sunderland city centre, but he has probably succeeded in undermining a similar-sized chunk of rain forest in Brazil.
Despite being opposed by a senior QC, the adjudicator was sure Mr Herron would not be overawed.
"You're a very competent, lucid appellant in my view, and you seem to have more knowledge of this case than, I expect, anybody else in this room," he said. But Mr Keenan had obviously reckoned without retired ship's captain, now another veteran Sunderland parking campaigner, David Green. To the adjudicator's apparent alarm, he was summoned by Mr Herron to present a slide show of "thousands" of photographs and traffic signs, which he cheerily declared were "not in any logical order". Within minutes Mr Herron's star witness was sent back to his seat, with the adjudicator grumbling about him "messing about with his computer."
Mr Keenan insisted on finishing by 4.45pm so he could catch a train back to London. He is unlikely to look back with fond memories on his visit.

Contract review follows comments on film
Sunderland Council leader Bob Symonds yesterday announced a review of the city's parking control contract after comments made by attendants were caught on film.
A file has been handed to police after the comments by staff at NCP, who hold the contract, were aired during a television documentary. The review could see parking enforcement brought back in house by the council, handed to a new contractor or the agreement renegotiated. NCP has held the contract since Sunderland Council took over parking control from the police in 2003.
Coun Symonds plans to hold urgent talks with NCP. Yesterday he said: "I was disgusted and I'm as concerned as everyone else in the city about the remarks that were made."
He also expressed anger about comments concerning disabled people.
"It is certainly not what we expect from our contractors."
Coun Symonds said the remarks would be referred to the police and the contract put under review.
NCP spokesman Tim Cowen said the firm had launched an immediate investigation into attendants' conduct.
"As an employer we cannot condone the language used in the programme, but it was not clear the level of entrapment used." he said.
"The BBC refused to show us any footage of it and we are deeply suspicious about the way it was compiled."

Tuesday, October 03, 2006

NCP deal to be reviewed

Probe into parking contract after TV shocker
Sunderland Echo
Tuesday 3rd October 2006
By Jeremy Wicking

Council bosses have ordered an immediate review into NCP's parking enforcement contract, after an undercover investigation.
Police are to probe footage from BBC's Inside Out, which showed parking attendants making racist comments and even cracking jokes about disabled people.
One patrolman boasted he had vandalised a car as an act of revenge after an argument.
The parking service could be taken over by the council, given to a new contractor, or renegotiated with NCP.
Council leader Bob Symonds said: "This council will not tolerate racism or comments like this about disabled people from our staff our anybody else, and it is certainly not what we expect from our contractors."


Disgusted Bob orders parking deal review
Sunderland council leader Bob Symonds today launched an immediate review of the city's parking enforcement contract after revelations in an undercover TV investigation.
He also revealed that police are being handed a file on how traffic attendants made racist comments and jokes about disabled people on the BBC programme.
Coun Symonds said he would meet with NCP (National Car Parks), which has had the contract for three-and-a-half years.
That review could see the parking service being taken over by the council, a new contractor or a renegotiated agreement.
As well as racist comments on the Inside Out programme on BBC last night, an attendant described how he vandalised a car in revenge after an argument with a driver.
Coun Symonds said: "I was disgusted and I'm concerned as everyone else in the city about the remarks that were made.
"This city council will not tolerate racism or comments like this about disabled people from our staff or anubody else, and it is certainly not what we expect from our contractors."
"The racist remarks are being referred to the police and the contract is under review."
He confirmed that he would be meeting with NCP at the earliest opportunity to discuss the contract and urged anyone to report the behaviour of attendants to the council, NCP or police.
Control of traffic attendants from Northumbria Police passed to the council at the beginning of 2003 and since then more than £1.8 million in fines has been collected.
There are 17 attendants and the service has been plagued by allegations of aggressive ticketing while the council has had to refund more than £60,000 of fines after loopholes were exposed.
NCP spokesman Tim Cowen said it was taking the programme's footage extremely seriously and launched an immediate investigation into the conduct of the attendants.
He said: "As an employer we cannot condone the language used in the programme, but it was not clear the level of entrapment used."
"The BBC refusd to show us any footage of it and we are deeply suspicious about the way it was compiled and it was riddled with mistakes."
He said an allegation of tyre slashing may simply just have been "silly bravado" and added: "Whether the attendant actually slashed them is another matter as there is no record of a complaint to the police.
"Nevertheless, we cannot condone racist comments or those about people with disabilities and we're investigating those."
The BBC said: We set out to ask some serious questions about the state of parking in Sunderland."

Comment
Park and deride on city streets
Racist comments from a Sunderland parking attendant will have shocked viewers of last night's Inside Out programme.
The BBC documentary was examining the city's parking system by placing an undercover journalist as a trainee attendant.
The journalist filmed racist remarks and also taped one NCP attendant claiming he'd slashed tyres and another verbally abusing people with disabilities.
We're sure the firm that employs the attendants will have been watching the programme with growing horror.
On the evidence shown last night, NCP must act against those identified on film.
Meanwhile, Sunderland City Council has quite rightly said it will be posing some serious questions to NCP.
The council took over responsibility for the management and enforcement of the parking system from the police three years ago.
Since then the council has had its problems with parking - culminating in the repayment of £60,000 of fines, and a tribunal run by the Nationsl Parking Adjudication Service which starts today.
The council has consistently said it has corrected mistakes and that its controlled parking zone is lawful.
That may be so, but councillors will today be deeply concerned about those enforcing our parking system, and the damage done to the city's image by last night's programme.


D-Day for tickets protester Neil


Monday, October 02, 2006

TV probe into city parking

Sunderland Echo
02nd October 06

SUNDERLAND'S parking system is blighted by racism, criminal damage and intimidation, an investigation is expected to claim today.

Footage due to be shown on television tonight will show alleged tricks employed by some attendants to settle old scores, target certain areas of the city and specific individuals.
One worker, apparently even admits to resorting to criminal damage in the BBC's Inside Out programme, to be screened on BBC1 at 7.30pm.
In one case, a parking attendant seems determined to ticket a man because he is Asian, while another worker describes how he damaged a car as an act of revenge after an argument with a driver.
Other motorists, who happen to be friends of some attendants, appear to escape parking fines altogether.
Sunderland City Council took over control of wardens from the police in February 2003, appointing National Car Parks (NCP) wardens across the city.
But recent loophooles in the law, exposed by campaigner Neil Herron, have resulted in hundreds of motorists across the city receiving cash back from fines wrongly handed out.
Chris Jackson, producer of the programme, said: "Some of the nasty behaviour of the attendants is hard to believe.
"These are people who are supposed to be upholding the law and they should have our trust."
The programme also claims to show how some parking attendants fool the council into thinking some streets are being patrolled when they are not.
It also highlights the alleged confusion in Sunderland in recent years between the council and its contractor, NCP, about where you can and can't expect a parking ticket in the city.
Mr Jackson added: "I'm sure this programme will have serious repercussions for both NCP and the council
"We set out to ask some serious questions about the state of parking in Sunderland".
The council and NCP say they have no evidence of racism or criminal damage – and urge people to come forward if they have complaints.
A spokeswoman for Sunderland Council said: "We have received no reports of the serious allegations the BBC is making.
"We are concerned that allegations are being made relating to the service standards of parking attendants in the city by the BBC without being provided with any information to enable us to investigate them.
"If anyone has a complaint of racial harassment or discrimination of any kind they should report it to NCP and to the council to enable it to be investigated properly.
"Decriminalised parking has been reviewed in the city and all appropriate action is being taken to ensure the system remains lawful and enforceable, encourages best use of parking spaces available and keeps traffic flowing safely through the city for residents and business.
"The council has acted transparently in making refunds in appropriate situations."

Sunday, October 01, 2006

Press Release: £1.2bn Parking Industry under threat with Sunderland Campaigner's Parking Ticket Appeal

Press Release

Sunderland City Council's Parking Ticket 'High Noon'


1st October 2006 for 3rd October 2006

" Council uses bully boy tactics as Queen's Council instructed to defeat parking ticket campaigner"

Campaigner Neil Herron who has successfully exposed massive flaws in Sunderland City Council's Decriminalised Parking Enforcement (DPE) regime finally has the opportunity to air the matter at a public hearing.

For two years he has deliberately collected parking tickets in an attempt to expose the fact that Sunderland were acting unlawfully but the Council have always dropped the cases and cancelled the tickets afraid that the whole regime would be exposed.

The subject has been covered nationally by two Trevor McDonald 'tonight' specials.

Finally, a public hearing has been scheduled for 12.30pm on Tuesday October 3rd in Sunderland Central Library in Fawcett Street.

For the first time since the campaign began Herron's tickets (26 of them) will be heard at an appeal before National Parking Adjudication Service adjudicator Andrew Keenan. Normally, this informal tribunal would take 15 minutes, but a full day has been set aside to hear the appeal (To date Herron has had over 90 tickets cancelled).

What is unprecedented for a parking tribunal and quite staggering is the fact that Sunderland City Council have instructed Stephen Sauvain QC to handle the case. His daily brief fee is rumoured to be as high as £9,000.

No other local authority has ever taken such steps for a £60 parking ticket appeal.

The timing of the hearing is quite fortuitous as it comes the day after a BBC 'Inside Out' documentary exposes the relationship between Sunderland City Council and its DPE Enforcement Contractor NCP Ltd. The programme is expected to highlight many of the failings in the operation and implementation of the DPE scheme and will include witness testimony from former NCP / Sunderland Parking Attendants.

To date the campaign has forced the Council to refund over £60,000 to motorists wrongly fined and it is expected that this figure will rise dramatically after Tuesday's hearing.

Neil Herron states, " We offered to sit down with the Council to highlight the massive flaws in their regime but we were dismissed with a contemptuous arrogance.
We were forced to go public.
Investigations revealed not only that motorists were being fined unlawfully, but the Council knew about it and covered it up.
This is not the way for a local authority to behave.
As the result of a formal complaint an internal investigation has revealed hundreds of missing Traffic Orders, thousands of missing or incorrect signs and fundamental flaws in the paperwork (including 75,000 non-compliant parking tickets being issued). Hopefully the hearing on Tuesday will allow a full public airing of the errors that still exist in what has become the biggest parking shambles in the country.

Rather than putting their hands up and coming clean Sunderland is attempting to use bully-boy tactics by instructing Leading Counsel against a member of the public for a hearing which is billed by NPAS as an informal tribunal.

We can still remember a similar tactic being used against greengrocer, the late Steve Thoburn in the world famous metric case.

What must be remembered is that to get the authority from Parliament to begin DPE (which we see as nothing more than licensed highway robbery ... as it is driven by revenue generation rather than sensible parking enforcement) Sunderland claimed that all their signs, lines and traffic orders would be correct and in force by February 3rd 2003.
This was clearly false and the correction programme is till ongoing more than twelve months after the investigation into the implementation and operational failings commenced.


A challenge, which will have implications for every parking ticket issued in the country, is also to be made regarding the independence and impartiality of the National Parking Adjudication Service.
NPAS is funded by the local authorities participating in DPE. The 'independent' adjudicators are appointed by the Joint Committee which comprises members of the local authorities and Manchester City Council is the lead authority responsible for the contractual obligations of NPAS and the producing of the NPAS accounts. The challenge to the independence of the tribunal is to be made under Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights. "


The following are amongst witnesses to be called:

Bob Rayner, Council Solicitor
Phil Barrett, Director of Development and Regeneration
Earl Belshaw, Parking Services Manager
Cllr Joseph Lawson, NPAS Joint Committee Representative
Caroline Sheppard, Chief Adjudicator
Andrew Barfoot, Tribunal Manager

The outcome of the tribunal will not only have massive financial implications for Sunderland, it could create a domino effect threatening this £1.2bn a year industry.

ENDS:

Contact:

Neil Herron
0191 565 7143
07776 202045
www.neilherron.blogspot.com

EVENT LOCATION:

SUNDERLAND CENTRAL LIBRARY
FAWCETT STREET
SUNDERLAND

TIME: 12.30PM

Links:

National Parking Adjudication Service

Sunderland City Council Parking Enforcement

Stephen Sauvain QC

Is the National Parking Adjudication Service Independent?

You decide

Click here to read their latest published accounts prepared by Manchester City Council's Treasurer, Richard Paver.

If you have had an NPAS appeal were you aware that this is the case and that the pensions of NPAS employees are held in the Greater Manchester Pension Fund operated by Tameside MBC.
Both Manchester and Tameside operate DPE.

ARTICLE 6(1) ECHR

ARTICLE 6
(1) In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. Judgement shall be pronounced publicly by the press and public may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the interest of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice.

Anyone wish to comment as to whether a local authority under the provisions of the Local Government and Finance Acts can assist NPAS in such a fashion, preparing their accounts, looking after their pensions whilst at the same time maintaining that they are an independent body?

There is a lot more to come...

Saturday, September 30, 2006

Herron and Segal on TalkSPORT tonight

It's a bit short notice but the Mike Dickin programme on TalkSPORT has been moved forward a day, so we are on the airwaves tonight at 11pm until 1am.
Parking is the topic and it is expected that the lines will be red hot.

Monday is the day of the BBC documentary 'Inside Out' which unravels the Sunderland Parking shambles. The contents are rumoured to be explosive, and filming has taken place over the last six months.
Although it is a BBC North East production it will be available on the digital channels across the country. More info when we have it.

Friday, September 29, 2006

NPAS Hearing to go ahead

Post has arrived this morning indicating that the hearing Herron v City of Sunderland is to go ahead on 3rd October 2006.

"The Adjudicator has confirmed that he will proceed with the hearing of your appeals as scheduled. The Adjudicator will deal with any further representations in relation to the adjournment of any of these cases at the hearing, which will enable him, if he decides that any adjournment is required, to give appropriate directions to the parties for the future conduct of thses appeals."

Location is Sunderland Central Libray, Fawcett Street. Time listed as 12.30pm. Everyone is welcome as it is a public hearing (it is seconds walk away from the Sunderland Central Metro Station).

NPAS Hearing getting closer ...

...and still no news regarding the adjournment.

26 PCNs to be contested on 3rd October with a full day set aside for my case. It is going to be a very interesting day indeed ... if it takes place. In light of the fact that Sunderland City Council have, and this is unprecedented for a parking ticket appeal, instructed Stephen Sauvain QC to present their case, I requested an adjournment. Although my case is watertight, if they were going to come in with the big guns it would be useful to throw NPAS into the spotlight as well and have an examination of their operation in tyhe public domain before distinguished council (who coincidentally is also based in Manchester, his offices some 800 yards from the offices of NPAS).

There are so many 'funny little coincidences.'

Such as the reports published by Professor Raine of Birmingham University which patted the parking industry on the back. 'Local Authority Parking Enforcement...Defining Quality - Raising Standards' was sponsored by NCP Ltd. the biggest player in the parking industry. In their press release NCP refer to the 'independent report.'
If the NPAS is supposed to be regarded as independent and impartial then do you really think that the Chief Adjudicator, Caroline Sheppard should be on the steering group? Especially as the steering group also had the Gary Griffiths (Head of Parking Services for Islington), Ian Kavanagh and Tony Sedgwick (the Director of On Street operations and Director of Research respectively for NCP), Nick Lester (Director of TEP on the Association of London Government...who fund PATAS from subscriptions from the 33 London Boroughs) and Andy Vaughan (Head of On Street Management, Manchester City Council).

Forget to mention that Caroline Sheppard is a Birmingham University alumni.

...and that Manchester City Council were still using non-compliant PCNs until a few weeks ago (awaiting confirmation that they have changed them) and they had not been picked up by the adjudicators (awaiting confirmation of all Manchester's recent appeals to NPAS.

...and did you know that Richard Paver is the guy who signs off the NPAS accounts as their Treasurer. If you click here you will see who Richard works for in his other job.

"As an independent tribunal, the National Parking Adjudication Service cannot offer advice to appellants or councils on the merits of individual cases."...front page of the NPAS website.

Are you now starting to get the picture that NPAS may be breaching Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights?

We are only just scratching the surface. There is a great deal more that we have and some very kind individuals in Local Authorities and in some of the big enforcement contractors starting to 'whistleblow.' Anyone else wishing to pass on information please drop us a line anonymously if you like.

Back to this report ... paid for by NCP Ltd. ...would you believe that Sunderland was one of the six local authorities that they examined in detail (along with Manchester, Hammersmith and Fulham, Weymouth and Portland, Winchester, Cambridge).
They were chosen because of "their reputations for good practice." Oh really?
Wonder if they spoke to the officers in Sunderland who are no longer in post?
Wonder if they checked the validity of the PCNs or the TROs...of course they didn't.

Decriminilsed Parking Enforcement is most certainly an 'industry' and everyone benefiting from the £1.2 bn a year that it produces is incestuously related.

Knowledge is a dangerous thing. Will they dare continue with the hearing?

My witness requests went out some time ago in relation to Caroline Sheppard and Andrew Barfoot of NPAS, and this week (giving 7 days notice to Sunderland Council Officers).

If the hearing goes ahead and they do not turn up then I will ask the adjudicator to invoke

Statutory Instrument 1999 No. 1918
The Road Traffic (Parking Adjudicators) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999

Power to require attendance of witnesses
6. - (1) The adjudicator may require the attendance of any person (including a party to the proceedings) as a witness, at a time and place specified by him, at the hearing of an appeal and require him to answer any questions or produce any documents in his custody or control which relate to any matter in the proceedings.

(2) Every document containing a requirement under paragraph (1) shall contain a reference to the fact that, under Section 73(14) of the Act any person who without reasonable excuse fails to comply with this requirement shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine, and the document shall state the amount of the current maximum fine.

(3) A person in respect of whom a requirement has been made under paragraph (1) may apply to the adjudicator to vary or set aside the requirement.

(4) A person shall not be bound to comply with a requirement under paragraph (1) unless he has been given at least 7 days' notice of the hearing or, if less than 7 days, he has informed the adjudicator that he accepts such notice as he has been given.

(5) A person other than an appellant shall not be bound to comply with the requirement under paragraph (1) unless the necessary expenses of his attendance are paid or tendered to him.

(6) No person shall be required to give any evidence or produce any document under paragraph (1) which he could not be required to give or produce on the trial of an action in a court of law.

I am looking forward to Tuesday ;-)

Thursday, September 28, 2006

Michael Watson FOI request Sunderland City Council

1st FOI request














Ticket Date Row

Carmarthen Journal
27th September 06
Mary Vancura

news@carmarthenjournal.co.uk

The manager of a Carmarthen taxi firm claims parking tickets issued by Carmarthenshire Council are invalid.
Steve Dunn, of Steve's Taxis, noticed that penalty charge notices (PCNs) issued by the council lack a date of contravention, as well as a date and time of notice.
The scrutiny of the tickets comes following a crucial court ruling on August 2, in the London borough of Barnet.
As the date of contravention and date of issue are not always the same, the judge ruled that those PCNs only offering a single date are invalid, as, under Section 66 (3) of the 1991 Road Traffic Act, they must show the specific date of the parking offence.
Mr Dunn says that this has huge implications for Carmarthenshire Council, as it has had for other councils around the country - all of which were issued with information on the problem years before it ever went to court.
"After the ruling in August, some boroughs and counties stopped issuing tickets because they knew that they didn't comply with the ruling," he said.
"Carmarthenshire Council is still issuing tickets with just a date of issue on them, which makes them invalid. Everyone who has paid one of these tickets is technically entitled to their money back."
After consulting Neil Herron, a Sunderland-based parking ticket expert, Mr Dunn sent a comprehensive email to Carmarthenshire's head of transport, Trevor Sage, detailing the ruling and asking for a response.
Carmarthenshire Council transport manager Stephen Pilliner said: "The issue has arisen from a specific court case covering the issue of an enforcement notice detected by CCTV.
"The council is satisfied that the processes and procedures relating to the issue of PCNs are undertaken in accordance with the law."

Wednesday, September 27, 2006

London Borough of Barnet v The Parking Adjudicator

Judge Jackson's Ruling: Moses v Barnet can be seen in full on the link below

Read it here


Tuesday, September 26, 2006

BBC Whistleblower Bailiff's Programme

At debt's door

BBC News - UK... courts, local authorities, landlords and sometimes direct from companies for failure to pay everything from council tax and parking fines to unpaid bills.

...See all stories on this topic

Drivers challenge spy camera law

Guardian Unlimited

Two motorists say human rights are being breached - and their case in Strasbourg this week could affect millions

Mark Townsend,
legal affairs correspondent
Sunday September 24, 2006
The Observer

The controversy over speed cameras will be reignited this week with a legal challenge that could overturn the government's ability to raise millions of pounds in traffic fines each year.

The European Court in Strasbourg will hear evidence that UK motorists' rights are being undermined by anti-speeding laws. Senior human rights judges will be told that existing laws - which require vehicle owners to disclose who was driving at the time the vehicle was pictured by a speed camera - breach a fundamental tenet of British justice, namely the presumption of innocence and the right to a fair trial.

If the challenge, brought by the human rights group Liberty against the British government, is successful then it would seriously impair the usefulness of Britain's 6,000 roadside cameras in catching speeding motorists. Lawyers for Liberty claim that an individual's 'right to silence' is a vital cornerstone of the law.

Last year, 2 million drivers were caught by speed cameras, resulting in fines of around £120m. Campaigners claim many drivers are penalised for momentary lapses of concentration and that the sums generated by speed camera fines are essentially a 'hidden tax' against Britain's 34 million motorists.

Edmund King, executive director of the RAC Foundation, said: 'This is a high-profile, important case whose outcome may affect millions [of people].'

At the hearing on Wednesday, 17 judges inside the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights will be told that motorists caught speeding by camera have an expectation to be protected by their right to silence.

The case centres on two motorists who objected to their fines. Judges will be told that a vintage Alvis belonging to Idris Francis, 66, was photographed being driven at 47mph in a 30mph area in Surrey in June 2001.

Francis, a retired company director of West Meon, Hampshire, refused to say who was driving and was fined £750 with £250 costs and three penalty points. He complains that being compelled to provide evidence of the offence he was suspected of having committed infringed his right not to incriminate himself.

His 1938 Alvis Speed 25, which was caught on the speed camera, has appeared in the Ruth Rendell Mysteries television series and was driven by Nigel Havers in The Charmer. Whether Francis will drive it to Strasbourg for this week's hearing has yet to be decided.

The judges will also consider the case of Gerard O'Halloran, 72, from London, who admitted driving a car at 69mph on the M11 in Essex where a temporary speed limit restricted vehicles to 40mph. He later tried to have his statement excluded but was fined £100 for speeding with £150 costs and six penalty points.

O'Halloran claims that he was convicted because of a statement he made under threat of a penalty similar to that for the speeding offence.

James Welch, legal director for Liberty, said it was essential that the laws were clarified to protect the presumption of innocence and the right to a fair trial. Welch added: 'Clearly there is no human right which allows drivers to travel over legal speed limits.
'Rather, the principle we are defending is that no one should be forced to convict himself by his own mouth under threat of criminal sanction. Unless we are willing to overlook 300 years of common law, motorists too must have a fair trial in which they are innocent until proven guilty'.'

Campaigners argue that the UK is one of the most difficult countries in Europe in which to maintain a clean driving licence. Nearly a million motorists are on the brink of a ban because they have racked up penalty points, a recent study found. Experts predict that if the challenge to section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 is successful, the police's power to use cameras to catch speeding drivers will be severely curtailed.



QC instructed for NPAS hearing

In an act of desperation Sunderland City Council have instructed QC Stephen Sauvain to present their case to the National Parking Adjudication Service.The appellant is parking campaigner Neil Herron who has attempted to get evidence before NPAS for two years to expose the illegality of the Sunderland DPE scheme. A detailed background can be seen below but the crux of the case rests on the fact that Sunderland do not have a Traffic Regulation Order for their CPZ / CPZ signs and therefore all the streets within the CPZ are incorrectly signed. Add this to the total shambles surrounding the rest of the lines, signs and TROs and the invalid paperwork it appears that the full day set aside for the hearing will be an entertaining one indeed.

The hearing on 3rd October is open to the public and Herron has already requested witnesses, including Head of Parking Services, the Director of Development and Regeneration and Head of Parking Services. The other witnesses will be a bit more reluctant having 'resigned' from the Council.

On the rather important point of the Article 6(1) breach by NPAS over their lack of independence and impartiality witnesses will also be called. They will include Chief Adjudicator Caroline Sheppard, Tribunals Manager Andrew Barfoot and NPAS Joint Committee representative Joe Lawson.

The timing of the tribunal is most fortunate. The 3rd October is the day after the explosive BBC 'Inside Out' documentary which blows the lid on Sunderland's Parking regime.

My request for an adjournment has been denied...by Caroline Sheppard. You can read the background as to why Ms Sheppard should not really be influencing proceedings here

Mr. Sauvain QC is going to be well worth his brief fee, rumoured to be between £6,000 and £9,000 a day.

It has cost Sunderland over £60,000 in refunds to date. Is this their last roll of a very expensive dice?

Monday, September 25, 2006

Driver's £18,500 bill for ignoring parking fines

Daily Telegraph
By David Sapsted
(Filed: 15/09/2006)

A single mother of four whose friends told her that she did not have to bother paying parking fines has been left with a bill of £18,500.
Roma Wheldon managed to get 120 parking tickets in two years. Her friends told her that the authorities never bothered to chase up unpaid fines and so she stuffed them all in a bin and forgot about them. However, far from forgetting about the £60 fines, Southend council put a debt collection agency and bailiffs on the case and presented Miss Wheldon, 35, with the huge bill, telling her to pay up or face prison.
Fortunately for her, her grandfather, parents and brother have paid off £12,500 of the debt, which includes £10,000 in bailiffs' fees.
That leaves Miss Wheldon owing £6,000, which she has agreed to pay off at £100 a month.

National Parking Adjudication Service refuse an Adjournment...The plot thickens

A full days hearing has been listed for 3rd October 2006 for my PCN appeals against Sunderland City Council.

I received notification back in August, but expectations were not high after 85 previous PCNs were either cancelled or 'no contested' by the City Council who appeared desperate to avoid any public exposure of their flawed regime.

In a nutshell they had been caught out issuing PCNs where they had no legal right to do so. They had lied to the Department for Transport on such a scale that it makes Jeffrey Archer and Jonathan Aitken look like Ghandi and Mother Theresa.
They had given 'reassurances' that all their signs, lines and Traffic Regulation Orders would be 'correct and in force' by the commencement of DPE on 3rd February 2003. Not only did they not act ... at all ... on the £60,000 Consultants detailed report of their failings, some three years later it still wasn't correct. Over 350 TROs have been adjusted / amended / corrected. They told the DfT that there would be none by Feb 2003!!!

On top of that they issued 75,000 non-compliant PCNs.

They received the NPAS Circular regarding the Bury Judgment highlighting the fact that Local Authorities need check their PCNs back in May 2005. Legal advice came from the Assistant City Solicitor to 'change the PCN wording immediately.' NCP (the contractors) were told on 16th June 2005. They did not alter the PCNs until 30th November 2005 after knowingly issuing over 12,000 non-compliant PCNs.

The next potential batch of my PCNs to go to appeal were suddenly cancelled after the Council got wind of the Aylesbury Vale v Lukha decision. All my Notices of Rejection were non-compliant so my NPAS appeals were dropped.

The crux of the case, as well as the big picture ... Bill of Rights Defence / Lack of Independence and Impartiality of NPAS therefore invoking the Article 6(1) ECHR Defence, was that Sunderland City Council did not have a TRO for the CPZ (Controlled Parking Zone) which meant that the on-street signage was incorrect.

They simply stuck signs up to indicate the boundaries of the CPZ. No consultation. No TRO. In fact they cannot even recall when they erected them!
The legislation is clear and states that a TRO is required for the sign.
A recent NPAS ruling between Green v Sunderland City Council won on this precise point.

However, as the stakes are a lot higher should I win on such a point that on 20th September I received notification that Sunderland had instructed none other than Stephen Sauvain QC to state their case.
NPAS confirmed that this was unprecedented. After all, they bill their adjudications as informal tribunals. No other local authority has instructed a QC for a single parking ticket case.

However, the fact that they had instructed a QC meant that an adjournment would be necessary in order for me to prepare a detailed case and instruct counsel and retain expert witnesses in order to give evidence. The request went in to NPAS.

NPAS declined my request. Not unusual except that Sunderland had stated in a letter to me that they wanted sight of my defence in advance otherwise they would have to insist on an adjournment.

So I rang NPAS. They told me that the Chief Adjudicator had made the decision. Caroline Sheppard, the Chief Adjudicator had made the decision. Caroline Sheppard after the previous telephone incident ( click here to understand how many careers are at stake) stated that " I can assure you that if you decide to lodge an appeal against any or all of the PCNs you are disputing with Sunderland Council the individuals involved in the conversations you overheard will take no part in the adjudication or adminstration of your case.

Seems funny that Ms Sheppard now wishes to deny me an adjournment in order to fully prepare a case against Sunderland's QC.
Seems like we have another David against Goliath struggle.

It would be nice to see the case go ahead on the 3rd as the BBC are running their half hour documentary on the Sunderland / NCP operation which promises to pull no punches.

Let us see if my witness orders against Ms Sheppard, Mr. Barfoot and a number of Sunderland City Council employees are also declined.

Meanwhile, anybody wishing to attend what will be a most illuminating spectacle can contact me by e-mail and I will keep everyone posted of developments. We would like a good crowd present as the argument will also see the independence and impartiality of NPAS exposed, including:

- the financial relationship between the 'independent' adjudicator and Manchester City Council and the involvement of the Council'sTreasurer and NPAS Capital Reserves and where they were held (oh, and by the way, Manchester City Council are only just in the process of changing their PCN s to make them compliant despite the NPAS Circular last year and despite adjudicators finding in favour of the council ... numbers to be released soon)

- the Pension Funds of NPAS employees being held in Tameside Council's Pension Fund. Independent?

- the Birmingham University Report compiled by Professor Raine and referrred to in the NPAS Annual Report was commissioned by NCP ! And Ms Sheppard is also a Birmingham University alumni.

That gives a taster of what is to come but suffice to say that this is the adjudicfation hearing that the adjudicators do not want to hear. Sunderland is the Council that the Department for Transport does not want investigating because it will expose the fact that there were no checks ever conducted and that a Local Authority could simply create a DPE regime on a false premise and fleece the motoring public with impunity ... or so they thought.

Well, let us see how the establishment come together to protect their own and prevent the first major domino from falling. If it does go then be ready for the rest to follow.

The National Parking Adjudication Service are aware that they are not compliant with the European Convention on Human Rights and fall foul of the Article 6(1) point that they are an independent and impartial tribunal. Adjudicators appointed by the Joint Committee comprising of Local Authority members participating in DPE. Funding at the rate of 55p per PCN. Appeals in favour of local authorities despite the MacArthur v Bury ruling. Adjudicators not trained to check PCNs or TROs and other paperwork.

Decriminalised Parking is collapsing around the country and there is no respect at all from the public. It is only a matter of time.

Friday, September 22, 2006

Time for David to slay Goliath again

Daily Express
Frederick Forsyth
Friday 22nd September 06

Whether the biblical tale of tiny David taking on the massive Goliath at his own game and beating him is only a myth, the British have long had a soft spot for the Davids of this world - the underdogs who take on the mighty Establishment with all its power and increasingly arbitary and ruthless privileges.

Such a man is pensioner Robin de Crittenden, who has been syudying the actual text of the fundamental pillar of our constitution, the Bill of Rights of 1689. So far as I know, no one even dares deny the cornerstone of the Bill of Rights - the unrepealed guarantor of all our basic freedoms - but no one ever reads it.

Specifically, Mr de Crittenden claims it absolutely forbids the punishment of a British citizen who has refused to plead guilty until and unless he has been found guilty by a court of law. It sounds simple but if true the implications are huge.

His particular issue is a parking fine, a small enough matter but the point is this: if what he claims is true, then on-the-spot fines are not lawful, whether for a parking infraction or for selling a T-shirt with the logo "B****cks to Blair" (stallholder fined £80 by a single police constable under the Public Order Act).

In Mr de Crittenden's case, the parking arbitration tribunal got worried enough to cancel his fine. But he proceeded anyway on the grounds that an administrative tribunal is not a court of law and had no right to fine him or pardon him. At the High Court he was rebuffed (totally predictable) by Mr Justice Collins, so he is trying to raise the funds to go to Appeal Court.

The thing is: our increasingly arrogant Establishment in the form of central government, local government, bossy PCs with no training in the law and unelected quangos make millions a year by slapping down on-the-spot fines - whether the victim pleads guilty or not.

But suppose Collins is wrong and the lone pensioner right? Suppose the Bill of Rights really forbids punishment (and a fine is punishment) without an admission of guilt or a trial? The money-grubbers in office over us would be up a creek.

What about all those automatic parking/speeding fines? What about the massive fines imposed on small businessmen by super-quangos for non-compliance with obscure rules that they simply made up? All illegal? Possibly.

Of course, there are many who now say the judiciary is so bloated with its power that it already has sold the pass and will always find for the Establishment against the little man; that the judges will find for the foreign terrorist under the Human Rights Act but deny the terms of the Bill of Rights when it is invoked by a Britisher.

What a dreadful thing to say. But is it true? Will the Court of Appeal crush David like a Goliath?

Wednesday, September 20, 2006

Another headline...another case of injustice

In this instance, people were targeted for not parking 'straight' in the bays. There are many who are fuming so we told the Lancashire Evening Telegraph we would join them up in a class action.
Read the story in the Lancashire Evening Telegraph below:

Campaigner targets NCP 'victims'

This Is Lancashire -
Blackburn,England,

Fine-buster Neil Herron has urged all drivers who were ticketed on the free-to-park Peel leisure and retail park, Lower Audley Street, Blackburn, to send him ...

Manchester Parking News

In advance of the big Manchester story breaking, which will effectively create a parking amnesty for motorists until Manchester City Council and surrounding local authorities correct their tickets, here are a few of the Manchester Evening News' parking headlines.

17/11/04
Parking ticket misery for Christmas traders
Full story




8/10/04
U-turn over wardens' 'cash for tickets deal'
Full story






9/05/03
Traffic warden's 101 tickets blitz
Full story




30/12/02
Parking wardens target 'cheats'
Full story





27/08/03
Wardens 'cancel tickets for pals'
Full story



5/10/05
Town's parking ticket 'blunder'
Full story




6/12/05
Parking gaffe may cost town hall dear
Full story




Another fine mess for blundering wardens
Full story


30/08/06
Tickets battle over 'ideal' parking spot
Full story





17/03/03
Yellow line that wasn't the ticket
Full story






Monday, September 18, 2006

Blog Archive


only search Neil Herron Blog