Parking fines could be the highest in UK under new plans by county council

This is where the 'kite-flying' began.

The Lincolnshire Echo
26th October 2010

Motorists could soon be fined £80 for parking misdemeanours under new proposals by Lincolnshire County Council.

Motorists caught parking illegally in Lincolnshire could soon be paying the highest fines in the UK under new proposals.

Lincolnshire County Council is to seek advice from the Deparment for Transport (DfT) on whether it can charge offenders £80 for parking misdemeanours.
The Conservative-controlled authority believes it would be the first in the UK to go above the current Government guidelines of £70.

County council officers are developing plans to take control of parking enforcement from Lincolnshire Police and say this penalty increase would save taxpayers at least £250,000 over the next five years.
Secretary of State for Transport Philip Hammond would need to give special authorisation if a formal application was submitted. But motoring group the AA believes hiking up fines to raise revenue for the council would be illegal.

County council divisional highways manager Brian Thompson said: "The Government has previously indicated that Civil Parking Enforcement (CPE) should bot be financially detrimental to local authorities.
"As it stands, the scheme would currently result in a significant deficit for Lincolnshire.
"For this reason, we are planning to approach the Department for Transport to explore the possibility of a rise in the penalty to mitigate the costs entailed."
County council estimates suggest the cost of implementing CPE would be almost £1.5 million over a five-year period if it was to run it using its own staff.
Using an external company would cost £743,000 during the same time frame.

An application for CPE is expected to be submitted by the county council to the DfT by February next year.
AA head of public affairs and parking spokesman, Paul Watters, said applying to raise the maximum parking charge to raise cash was "against the law".

Mr Watters said: "Councils are not allowed to use penalty levels as a revenue-raising exercise.
"It must only be to deter drivers. The council is naive it it thinks it can set penalty levels to raise revenue."
Discussing the issue at yesterday's county council highways, transport and technology scrutiny committee, councillor gave a mixed reception to increasing the fine.
Mr Thompson said it would have a "significant effect" on finances.
He addes: "But it would make Lincolnshire different."
Conservative Councillor David Brailsford said: "I am going to suggest we don't go out on a limb. I know there are financial implications. but to charge higher in Lincolnshire than anywhere else would be extremely unpopular."

Independent Councillor Ray Newell said: "What is the argument against getting more money in from someone that is disobeying the instructions? This will either sink or swim. In the financial climate by putting this figure up it's more likely we will be swimming than losing."
But Lincoln Birchwood Tory Councillor Eddie Strengiel said the current financial climate provided its own pressures.

He said: " The current financial situation is a little bit sensitive."

Parking tribunal Chief tells councils to show common sense

Perhaps the motoring public would have more faith in the system if decisions by the TPT were consistent ... and applied the law in relation to signing. We have seen many instances where they chant the mantra 'no reasonable person could have been misled' which is at odds with regard to the fact that signing must comply with the law. PATAS on the other hand is far more consistent in its approach. However, new developments on a number of fronts will shake this 'industry' from top to bottom ... and the recent arrest and pending trial of a council officer for misconduct in public office will cause a great deal of consternation as whistleblowers queue up to ensure that they are not tarred with the same brush.

The Sunday Telegraph
By David Harrison

10 Oct 2010
Caroline Sheppard, chief adjudicator of the Traffic Penalty Tribunal, accused some local authorities of operating a "zero tolerance" approach to minor infringements.

She suggested that motorists who are given parking tickets for petty breaches of the rules should be let off if they appeal against the penalties. Mrs Sheppard complained that motorists were being punished for such offences as leaving one wheel over the white line of a car park bay, or failing to display their pay-and-display ticket correctly.

In such cases, drivers whose penalties were upheld on appeal to town halls have subsequently had them overturned by the tribunal.
Last year the tribunal received more than 12,000 applications to overturn tickets. In more than 60 per cent of cases it ruled in favour of the motorist.

The intervention by the chief adjudicator comes after The Sunday Telegraph's Campaign for Fair Parking highlighted cases where councils have carried on issuing tickets in areas where they knew the signs were illegal. Mrs Sheppard accused councils of failing to exercise their discretion when penalties were challenged, and called for "an outbreak of common sense" over trivial cases.
She urged motorists to appeal against penalties if they think they have been dealt with unfairly or illegally.
She said: "Motorists must appeal if they have any doubts over penalty charges. People want to explain but we only see what comes before us, so let us look at it."

The chief adjudicator said she was concerned that too many councils were failing in their statutory duty to give proper consideration to representations made by motorists contesting penalties, or to evidence offered in mitigation.

She said that motorists' letters of explanation to town halls were often dismissed with a standard response letter of one or two lines – a practice which suggests that their arguments "had not been considered properly or fairly".
Many councils were "unwilling or unable to consider challenges based on mitigating circumstances", Mrs Sheppard said.

Mitigation pleas are common in cases where a ticket had been issued because of a failure to display a permit, disabled parking badge or pay-and-display ticket.
Many councils had taken the "extraordinary" view that it was somehow "fairer" to reject all representations, she said.

Adjudicators had seen this explained in letters of rejection in which council officials said it would be "unfair" on people who had paid a penalty charge if those who made representations were "let off".

Mrs Sheppard, a barrister, also criticised the rising number of appeals that councils failed to contest at the tribunal, saying: "I don't understand why local authorities reject drivers' representations and then go no further."

The tribunal, which covers all of England and Wales except Greater London, considers cases where motorists have received a parking ticket then appealed to the town hall, which has upheld the decision.

It received 12,423 submissions last year, an increase of 11 per cent on the previous year's figure.Of cases decided by the tribunal, 34 per cent were won by the motorist because the council did not contest the case and a further 28 per cent were decided in favour of the motorist after the adjudicator considered and rejected the council's arguments, meaning that 62 per cent of all appeals were successful.

In nine out of the past 10 years, the proportion of successful appeals has been over 60 per cent.
Last year in 28 areas more than half of all appeals went uncontested by the local authorities concerned.

Areas with the highest proportion of tickets overturned at the tribunal in 2008/9, the most recent figures available, included the Medway towns in Kent, where 360 motorists appealed to the tribunal and 91% were successful, and Slough, where 246 appealed and 84% were successful.
The chief adjudicator declined to comment on councils which instructed enforcement officers to issue tickets despite having being warned that their regulations or signposts were legally flawed.
But she said it was "regrettable" that the tribunal was still being asked to determine appeals against penalties issued on streets where road signs were misleading and confusing.

In some cases, the tribunal has told councils to ensure that their parking officials receive guidance from their legal teams.

Parking tickets can only be issued when a motorist has broken a Traffic Regulation Order (TRO), or bylaw, that has been made correctly by the local authority.
Mrs Sheppard said that adjudicators were "bewildered" by some TROs, and called for greater clarity so that parking signs were clear and unambiguous.
The most common appeals were over pay and display tickets, "signs and lines", vehicle ownership, loading and unloading, penalty charge notices not issued or not on the vehicle, residents and visitors permits, and disabled bays and badges.

Most (57 per cent) of appeals are dealt with by post, 35 per cent by personal hearing and 8 per cent by the recently introduced telephone conference, the latter up from 12 in 2008 to 167 last year.

Yellow box camera raises £1 million a year

If so many motorists are committing contraventions then the traffic and highways engineers have failed ... from a traffic management perspective. If it is about raising revenue then they have been hugely successful.

The Telegraph
By Melissa Kite, Deputy Political Editor
17 Oct 2010
It has been called the "money box" - a traffic camera at a yellow box junction in Battersea, south London is raising a million pounds a year in fines levied on hapless motorists.

When the Sunday Telegraph monitored the junction, it found that every single car that went through was unable to exit the box properly, because of the congestion ahead.

Drivers claim they cannot avoid stopping inside the box because of severe congestion in the area caused by ongoing engineering works.
Campaigners say it is part of a growing trend of motoring fines being used by authorities as stealth taxes.

Up to 2,000 drivers a month are being fined for becoming stuck in the junction on Battersea Bridge Road, a main route from the south into the centre of London. The road has been the scene of major hold ups since a main arterial route was closed in February, making it difficult for cars to avoid stopping at the junction.

When The Sunday Telegraph monitored the junction, it found that every single car that went through was unable to exit the box properly, because of the congestion ahead.
A camera erected above the traffic lights films motorists as they pass through. Anyone who stops for longer than five seconds in the box is issued with a fine of £60, which can double if not paid immediately.

In response to a series of Freedom of Information requests, Transport for London said that £520,000 has been raised by the camera in the six months from January to July, with 10,087 motorists issued with tickets.

The figures show clearly that the number of penalties handed out doubled in February, at exactly the same time that the adjacent Albert Bridge was closed and traffic redirected over Battersea Bridge.

While only 640 people were caught in the box junction in January, that monthly total had more than trebled to 2,153 by March.
One motorist who was caught by the camera appealed her fine and last week an adjudicator at a parking appeals hearing upheld her complaint.

Elizabeth Lord won on the grounds that she could not have avoided stopping in the box as the exit was clear when she drove into it but became blocked by pedestrians by the time she was part way across.
She said she was no longer prepared to pay unfair motoring fines since being made redundant in the recession. And she urged other motorists to also appeal.

"I'm afraid I've reached the stage where I'm not prepared to take this lying down any more," she said.
"It's dreadful. I think people ought to fight these fines. I would suggest to anybody, don't take it lying down.
"Motorists are an easy target and most people are too busy to fight. But people haven't got so much money now, money is tight and we don't have £60 to chuck at something ridiculous like this."

A spokesman for Transport for London said: "We enforce traffic regulations to keep London's red route (major roads) network moving safely for the benfit of all road users.
"Our traffic enforcement strategy is aimed at keeping the red route moving - it is not about raising revenue.
"If anyone believes they have been issued with a Penalty Charge Notice unfairly or if there are mitigating circumstances they can appeal to TfL or to the independent Parking and Traffic Appeals Service."

Authorities Bill may give London councils new powers

BBC News London
13th October 2010

A bill that will give local authorities in London a range of new powers is a step closer to becoming law after clearing its first Commons hurdle.
The London Local Authorities Bill would help councils issue fines to the public and clamp down on rogue traders.
Unusually, it was introduced in the House of Lords, and has already passed all its stages in the Upper Chamber.

Personal liberty campaigners said the bill was a move into 'dangerous waters'.
But all major parties backed the legislation, which was given a second reading by 293 votes to 21.
The legislation was backed despite one Conservative minister voicing concerns over it.
The legislation would:

• Require people issued with penalty charge notices - for example over littering or parking - to provide their name and address to council officers



• Allow councils to recover the cost of street cleaning from polluting traders



• Require fast food sellers to display their hygiene rating and allow councils to crack down on unlicensed car dealers

Conservative MP Mike Freer said: "Many of us in this house would like to turn back the clock to a gentler age, but sadly we do live in an irresponsible society where many individuals cause problems for residents.
"Many of us would prefer a reduction in regulation and a lessening of the intrusive nature of government - both national and local.
"However, we do have a responsibility to address the real issues facing Londoners."

Conservative Local Government Minister Bob Neill said some measures in the Bill needed closer examination.
He cautioned: "We have to be proportionate and avoid the proliferation of fines for what might be perceived as genuinely minor breaches and which might create in the public a sense of unfairness.

Shadow local government minister Chris Williamson (Labour) said: "This bill has already been agreed by all 33 of the London local authorities.
"London councils are controlled by all three of the main political parties.
"On this bill they speak with one voice."

Neil Herron, who became known as the "metric martyr" after defying EU regulations on selling produce under the imperial weight system, criticised the Bill.
He said: "We are entering into dangerous waters when we are giving council officers these powers. "We need to go back to the fundamental principle that you can only be fined in a court of law.
"They will be fining us for standing on the cracks in the pavement next."

Three yellow lines on the road that mean nothing

Just to underline the fact in yellow!

This is Exeter
published 04.10.10
PUZZLED: Businessman Brian Burnett with the triple yellow lines

Businessman Brian Burnett is the latest victim to emerge from what has been dubbed "the great parking scandal" after he was booked while parked on a triple yellow line.

The owner of Repaircare Electrical Services parked a van outside his business in Ladysmith Road, Exeter, to load some equipment but was given a penalty charge notice by civil enforcement officers
Mr Burnett asked the city council to reconsider due to the confused nature of the markings but was told "the intention" of them was clear so his ticket would not be cancelled
But he has now discovered that any variation on a recognised road sign can only be adopted with permission from the Secretary of State

His case has now been taken up and highlighted by city councillor and former police officer Percy Prowse.
It is the latest embarrassment for the council following the revalations in the Echo last week that tickets were being issued in areas that the council was told were unlawful three years ago.
Three former traffic wardens are expected to hear this week whether they have been successful in their tribunal claim for constructive dismissal .

They have turned whistleblowers and accompanied the Echo on a tour of the city centre to show where they were told to issue tickets despite doubts over the lawfulness of the signs and regulations

Mr Burnett said he felt furious after discovering his ticket had been issued unlawful and said: " I left the van outside on what is clearly a triple yellow line while we were about to load
"It took longer than we thought it would to load and in the meantime we were given a ticket.

"I appealed against it as I thought it was unfair but lost . After that I did speak to Percy and he is still challenging it on my behalf

"I have since discovered it is totally unlawful to give tickets when the road markings are not as they should be and I am really angry I have been penalised in this way

"Nothing has changed on the road marking but I am not sure who has been given a ticket there"

Mr Prowse said he had recently written to the county council's solicitor to ask what a triple yellow line meant and he was told it meant "absolutely nothing". He said: " A triple yellow line means nothing so they should never have issued a ticket in the first place.
The council wrote back to him to say 'the intention' of the lines was clear.
"To make variations from road signs in law the council needs permission from the Secretary of State. The law also states you cannot have a variant on yellow lines and a triple yellow does not exist For this reason it is totally unlawful."

Exeter City Council carries out the enforcement of on-street parking in the city on behalf of Devon County Council
A spokesman for the county council said: "The city council is instructed to enforce where the intent of the signs and lines clearly communicate the relevant restrictions
"Minor deviations in markings from the requirements of the regulations will not automatically invalidate a Penalty Charge Notice. If any individual believe they have been issued a Penalty Charge Notice incorrectly they hould appeal as directed on the notice."

Millions of parking tickets given out 'illegally', expert reveals

Telegraph
By David Harrison
02nd October 2010
Millions of parking tickets are being issued illegally all over the UK, according to a leading expert.
Chris Leithead, ex-head of the Metropolitan police traffic division and a traffic consultant who advises councils on parking, said local authorities were issuing parking tickets in areas where signs were unlawful.

He said he had witnessed this in London, Birmingham, Manchester Edinburgh and Bath and was "absolutely certain" it was happening in many other areas.
Defective signs he has identified include:

• Signs more than 60 metres apart, or simply missing


• Road markings, such as parking bays and yellow lines, so worn they can barely be made out3


• Double yellow lines with no T-bar to show the end of the no parking restriction.


• "Swivel" signs that change restrictions without warning.


• Signs that are unclear or ambiguous.
  

Mr Leithead, who has advised councils all over the UK on the introduction of decriminalised parking enforcement, said: "We are talking about millions of tickets that have been issued unlawfully.
"Councils are taking advantage of the fact that most motorists do not know the signs are unlawful and that, even if they have concerns, they will just pay up to get it out of the way.
"But drivers should not be given those tickets in the first place."

His comments followed The Sunday Telegraph's disclosure last week (here) - confirmed in leaked emails - that Exeter city council had told traffic attendants to keep on issuing tickets even after they had pointed out that parking signs and bays were unclear or wrong.
Council parking controls have to be enshrined in bylaws, called Traffic Regulation Orders (TROs). The signs and markings used to impose the restrictions have to be displayed and painted according to Department for Transport instructions before tickets can be issued, with only "minor deviations" allowed.


But Mr Leithead said there nobody checked whether councils were complying with the regulations - and many were flouting them openly as a way of raising revenue.
"This is not traffic management," he said. "If councils were serious about wanting traffic to flow more freely we would see attendant giving out tickets to cars blocking buses and other vehicles on main roads.
"But too many of them are busy dolling out tickets in quiet side streets where cars are not actually causing any problems and where signs are often unclear and unlawful."
A spokesman for the AA said: "When someone with Mr Leithead's inside knowledge and experience speaks out like this we should sit up and take notice.
"This confirms what we have long suspected - that councils are exploiting motorists to boost their coffers."

Through his local MP, Tony Lloyd, Mr Leithead has lodged a complaint with the parliamentary ombudsman, accusing the Secretary of State for Transport of maladministration for failing to require local authorities to carry out their legal duties.

He decided to complain after working as a consultant for Bath and North East Somerset council in 2008 and discovering many of its TROs and signs were unlawful.
Two TROs, for example, contained contradictory controls for the same road with one decreeing that there should be parking bays and another saying there should be no waiting allowed by any vehicles.
When he told the council that it should not issue parking tickets in these areas until the errors were rectified he says officials ignored his advice and the Department for Transport failed to take any action against them.

In March this year Richard Buckley, head of the Department for Transport's traffic management division, replying to a letter from Mr Leithead, said the department had no "formal role" to manage councils' parking controls performance or to investigate allegations made against them.
If officials received evidence of council failings they would "advise" the authority to stop issuing tickets but the local authority would decide whether to take any action, he said.
It was up to local communities, media and campaign groups to hold local authorities to high standards, using "civil society and local democracy," Mr Buckley added.

Mr Leithead said the department's response was "totally unacceptable" because "nobody is scrutinising councils' performance." He wants to see a national inspectorate set up to perform that role.
"The threat of the inspectorate would concentrate minds to make sure councils get it right in the first place," he said.
Mr Leithead,69, a former police superintendant with a total of 45 years experience as an officer and traffic consultant, said that, unlike police-trained wardens, council parking attendants were not trained to recognise incorrect signs.
"Their managers should ensure that enforcement officers receive proper training so they can identify illegal signs and know not to give out tickets," he said.
"But instead they are being ordered to hand out tickets anyway.
"The Sunday Telegraph "showed it was happening in Exeter, and I am absolutely certain that the problem is duplicated across other parts of the country. It's cynical, iniquitous and wrong."

Neil Herron, director of the Motorists Legal Challenge Fund, said: "As an influential police figure in the switching of traffic control powers to councils Mr Leithead is in a perfect position to see what is happening on the other side.
"What he is revealing is the deliberate abuse of council powers under the guise of traffic management. Many councils are out of control and beyond censure. A full investigation is needed to expose those councils that are breaking the law to impose a stealth tax."

A spokesman for Bath and North East Somerset council said: "We are undertaking a project to make Traffic Regulation Orders mor accessible anf understandable to the public as part of our commitment to ensuring compliane with relevant legislation.
"If the council did discover any uncertainty over the validity of a Traffic Regulation Order, enforcement would be suspended until the ambiguity is cleared up."

THE WRONG WINDOW
A motorist was issued with a £40 penalty charge notice because he stuck his pay-and-display ticket in a side window rather than the windscreen.
Peter Kirby, 78, had paid the right amount to park in Croydon, south London. He wrote to Croydon council, which waived the fine.
He said: "I don't believe the fine would have been enforceable in court as the ticket said 'Place on display in the windscreen' whereas the Penalty Charge Notice merely requires the ticket to be 'displayed clearly'."
A spokesman said: " The motorist provided evidence that on this occasion he had bought a valid pay and display ticket."

THE WRONG CAR PARK TICKET
A retired businessman was ordered to pay a £60 penalty for using a £6 day ticket, valid for long-stay car parks in Scaborough, North Yorkshire, in a car park which was for short-stay-only during the summer.
Clive Dixon, 62, from Melton Mowbray, Leicestershire, said there were no signs informing motorists that the car park was for short stays only.
He appealed but Scarborough council refused to back down until Mr Dixon threatened legal action and produced photographs from every angle, proving there were no signs.
Eventually officials apologised and said a mistake had been made.

THE PHANTOM TICKET
When Peter Cook popped into his local butchers to buy sausages, he left his car on double yellow lines for a few minutes. He came back to find a parking attendant starting to issue a ticket.
"We had a brief exchange and she was trying to hold me in a conversation. i got in my car and drove off," he said.
Weeks later he received a letter demanding £60 for the transgression on Chaucer Road, Gillingham.
Mr Cook, 52, a business consultant and author, told Medway council he had never received an initial ticket giving him the chance to pay at the discount rate of £30.
The council replied with a statement from the parking attendant: "Ticket handed to driver at 10.53am."
The motorist disputed the attensant's account. Eventually the council agreed to waive the fine, saying the attendant may have forgotten what had happened.

30 per cent of residents parking schemes in Plymouth not legal: Claims flood expected

The council admit that lines are defective and stop enforcing. The recent decision of the High Court in the Barry Moss case and the precedent set in Woolwich Equitable Building Society v Inland Revenue Commissioners means that the council has acquired unlawfully derived income has a duty to refund such tickets.

This is Plymouth
By Keith Rossiter Political Reporter
Parking tickets may have been issued illegally on scores of city streets.
There are fears that Plymouth City Council could face a flood of claims for refunds after a motorist won her case at a parking adjudication hearing.

The ticket issued against the unnamed driver has been overturned because the lines were incorrectly painted more than a decade ago.

Now it has emerged that about 30 per cent of residents' parking chemes put in by Devon County Council when it still controlled transport in Plymouth are not legal.

Last week, the city council was working frantically to correct the mistake.

Under Government regulations, there should be single lines at the end of a residents' bay - but a third of the city's schemes have double yellow lines.

"We corrected more than half the bays by Friday, and the rest will be done within a few days," said Mr Wigens.

He refused to comment on whether the ruling would open the floodgates for people to demand refunds of parking tickets.

But Labour city councillor Brian Vincent, who drew the attention of The Herald to the problem, said he feared that it could cost the council thousands of pounds.

Jim Aspey, who has lived in Wellington Street, Greenbank for more than 30 years, said he was disgusted.

"You've got to have a permit and we have to pay for visitors tickets as well."

He said the lines in Wellington Street had been painted more than ten years ago. About 500 permits had been issued for only 200 bays in his area.

"When the students are here, there is nowhere to park," said Mr Aspey.

He pays £25 a year for his permit, and also buys books of tickets for residents.

A council spokesman said: "As this issue applies to a minority of our resedential bays, we continue to enforce the majority.

"All of our residential bays are clearly signed and widely understood, therefore we'd urge motorists not to behave any differently, so as not to run the risk of enforcement."

Mr Wigens said: "Obviously it wouldn't have been correct for us to continue patrolling and ticketing in the normal way.

"My understanding is that a number of local authorities find themselves in a similar position.

"Councils do their best to strike a balance, protecting the interests of residents and giving them a reasonable chance to park near their homes.

"All of the bays affected were ones that came across to us from Devon County Council when Plymouth became a unitary authority in 1998.

"It does seem to many people, including myself, that these sorts of technical issues aren't within the spirit of the legislation."
Mr Vincent, the shadow Cabinet member for transport, said: "They've stopped the wardens from issuing tickets, so you've got all these wardens doing nothing. They are costing the council money and not bringing in revenue.

"This could be a bombshell if people who have been prosecuted challenge it.

"It could cost the council thousands of pounds."

Mr Vincent, who is an Efford and Lipson councillor, added: "There will be a huge loss of income until the lining is made legal.

"People who pay for residents' permits aren't going to be very happy having paid £25 a year when it turns out that anyone could park."

Ex-wardens take us on a tour to reveal sites of 'unlawful' ticketing

The recent High Court decision in Moss v KPMG confirms that signs must be as prescribed. There is a great deal more to come out of the South West and the lawyers are lining up and sharpening their pencils!

Express and Echo
By Exclusive Tom Bevan

Two former traffic wardens have revealed areas of the city where they claim tickets are being issued to motorists illegally.

Drivers are being fined for parking and loading in areas of Exeter where traffic lines and signs were highlighted as unlawful to the council three years ago, the Echo can reveal.

An investigation has uncovered several parts of the city where civil enforcement officers have been told to issue tickets despite long-standing concerns about the legality of the orders.

Jo Pengilley and Sylvia Watts, who had several years as wardens and then civil enforcement officers, have now turned whistleblowers, and accompanied the Echo on a tour of the city centre, highlighting several areas of concern.

The pair, who resigned from their posts last year, said they were told to issue tickets in these areas when they worked as traffic wardens for the police as the signs were incorrect or ambiguous.

But they say they were givent the opposite instruction when control of parking enforcement was transferred to Exeter City Council in May 2008. Devon County Council has had overall responsiblity for the road signs and lines throughout.

In what has been dubbed "the great parking scandal" they said they were told to issue tickets which would be cancelled only if the motorist logged a complaint.

As revealed in the Echo, the pair and former colleague Tony Lewis are seeking damages for unfair constructive dismissal following an employment tribunal.

A decision in the case is expected soon.

The tribunal heard that around 3,000 tickets have been cancelled by the city council since May 2008 - around ten per cent of the total issued.

Speaking exclusively to the Echo, they claimed problems with non-compliant signs and lines in the part of the city centre included concerns is:

High Street

Cathedral Yard

Southernhay West

Bailey Street

Northernhay Gate

But they stress that those examples are only indicative, and the problem is widespread across the whole city.

Conservative city councillor and former police officer Percy Prowse, who ha campaigned for several years on the issue, yesterday labelled the situation "disgusting and potentially criminal" and accused the city council of "burying its head in the sand."

A chief area of concern is the High Street, where signs on the entrance conflict with other signs on the road itself on whether loading is allowed to take place there.

In an e-mail seen by the Echo, dated May last year, Steve Carnell, Exeter's parking services manager, wrote to Gary Powell at Devon County Council asking for advice on these signs.

He wrote: "CEOs [civil enforcement officers] report that the restriction signage isn't clear as it is a variable message sign and only displays the full details once the loading restrictions come into effect at 10am. Anyone driving past it before this time isn't aware what time the restriction commences.

"Do you wish to suspend enforcement where signage could be considered inappropriate or unclear?"

In reply Mr Powell said: "I am reluctant to suspend enforcement in the High Street. I am not sure they are illegal and until they are successfully challenged I think we should continue to enforce."

There was a similar situation in Cathedral Green, where the entrance and the roadside signs regarding loading and access again contradict each other.

In other areas, such as Southernhay West, some double yellow lines were also so poorly maintained and broken that Miss Pengilley said there was no way they would issue tickets as traffic wardens. But she said that as soon as the council took control they were told to book vehicles in any case.

They also showed the Echo one spot where they booked vehicles for parking on what was pricate land, at the back of Waterstone's.

Miss Pengilley said that whether or not their claim for constructive dismissal was successful, they felt justified in highlighting the issue of illegal signs and lines.

"What we have shown you is just in the city centre," she said.

"If it is wrong here it is wrong outside. For us this has never been about getting money,

"It was about proving the council wrong and whether we lose our tribunal or not, I think we have done that. The public now know what was going on, and that had been our objective from the start.

"We just wanted to be fair to the motorists. When we were traffic wardens we would not issue tickets as the signs are so clearly wrong and unlawful. But as soon as we came under control of the council everything changed.

"We were told to forget everything we had done over the years and issue tickets in areas we would not have dreamt of doing previously."

Cllr Prowse said: "Both the county and the city council have really messed up on the issue of civil parking enforcement. The interesting one is the High Street, which I first raised with the council three years ago.

"The council is fully aware of the problem but has chosen to bury its head in the sand.

"It has continued to issue tickets unlawfully, and it must border on the verge of a criminal matter - I am tempted to report it to the police. The county council has never answered any of my letters. There are so many problems."

Cllr Prowse uncovered another error by Devon County Council after the handover in 2008 that has led to thousands of pounds being paid back to city drivers.

Penalty tickets were issued to drivers in three large parking zones in the city before the council discovered that the areas weren't covered by the relevant traffic order.

The mix-up, first highlighted by the Echo, meant the county council had to pay back the cost of fiens dished out to drivers in Pennsylvania, Duryard and the Regent's Park residents' parking zones between May 2008 and February last year.

Cllr Prowse said this was just part of a catalogue of errors he had uncovered since the handover.

He said: " I had to ask them what a triple yellow line means recently. It means nothing.

"It would be great if the county council would make a full and frank admission that it has not got things right. It is disgusting that things have been allowed to get to this stage and we are no further forward in resolving it. It is an embarrassment to the council."

A spokesman for the city council, said it carried out the enforcement of on-street parking in Exeter on behalf of Devon County Council.

He said: " Ever since we took on the role of civil parking enforcement on May 2008 we have consistently referred issues about on-street parking restrictions to Devon County Council for policy directions as to whether they are enforceable.

"This decision rests with them as a highway authority, and we follow the direction they give to us."

A county council spokesman said: "District councils are instructed to enforce where the intent of the signs and lines clearly communicate the relevant restrictions.

"Civil Enforcement Officers will make the appropriate observations before deciding whether a contravention of the restriction is being made.

"Minor deviations in markings from the requirements of the regulationswill not automatically invalidate a Penalty Charge Notice.

"If anyone believes they have been issued a Penalty Charge Notice incorrectly, they should appeal as directed on the notice and their appeal will be thoroughly considered."

The worm turns ...

It is going to be an uncomfortable few months for private landowners who have failed to regulate their clamping agents.

Case papers are being prepared against one firm who allowed the clamping of a 68 year old war veteran on an empty car park whilst his Blue Badge was clearly displayed.

Lawyers are starting to line up for cases set to hit County Courts across the land.
It is likely that there will be more actions like the one below surfacing in the near future.

Hats off to Norman Baker MP and Lynn Featherstone MP for acting quickly and decisively on a matter which is classed as 'theft and extortion' North of the Border.

Blackmail charges follow wheel-clamping firm probe
Wigan Today
18th August 2010

A total of six people have been charged with conspiracy to commit blackmail after a lengthy inquiry in the West Midlands into a wheel-clamping firm, police said.

The charges against five men and a woman were announced by West Mercia Constabulary after a joint investigation which also involved Worcestershire's trading standards department and the Security Industry Agency.

A police spokesman said the inquiry had focused on the activities of Redditch-based Midland Parking Contracts, now known as iWatch Security Services Ltd, which operated across the West Mercia, West Midlands, Gloucestershire and Warwickshire areas.

Those charged, who have not been named, will appear before magistrates in Redditch next Tuesday.

People's Champ beats Clamps

Read the full story here

COUNCIL FOUND GUILTY OF UNFAIR PRACTICES IN PARKING APPEALS AND PARKING TICKETS CANCELED!

PR Fire

Submitted by Barrie Segal on 05 July 2010

Camden Council found guilty by parking adjudicator of failing to make a full disclosure of evidence to motorists when their parking tickets were appealed to the parking Adjudicator. As a result the parking tickets in the case were cancelled!

In a landmark parking tickets decision a Parking Adjudicator has held that Camden Council have acted unlawfully and failed to make full disclosure of evidence to motorists when cases are submitted to the Parking Adjudicator.

In a case brought about by parking ticket expert Barrie Segal, founder of the parking tickets website http://www.appealnow.com/ on behalf of clients Barrie argued that the council had removed evidence from the evidence bundle which was required to be sent to all motorists appealing to the Parking Adjudicator. Barrie said: " Parking Tickets are an everyday hazard but when council issue parking tickets and act unfairly this is not acceptable."

The decision (Case 2100216116 Hizer -v- Camden) states;-

Mr Segal represents the Appellant and argues that the authority has not served a complete set of case papers to him and that prejudice has arisen and non-compliance with established Parking and Traffic Appeals Service directions.

The decision goes on to say:

I find that the authority has not complied with this direction, and that there has been prejudice to the Appellant by the failure to make full disclosure; this is especially so when the authority is aware that an Appellant is represented.

The appeal is allowed

Barrie says, I have complained for months about the way Camden Council deal with parking tickets when the appeal goes before an adjudicator. There have been cases where evidence in the form of copy parking tickets supplied to the adjudicator but not submitted to the motorist have been different from the original parking tickets received by the motorist (Case 2090479625 Hilton -v- Camden)

He went on to say, "When it comes to parking tickets it is not surprising in my view that Camden was the council with the lowest percwentage of winning appellants (34%) at the Parking Adjudicator. The council's scandalous behaviour in this case, I have now won demonstrates that motorists have been treated unfairly particularly where they have relied on the paperwork received from the council. I believe that motorists who have lost cases at the Parking Adjudicator relating to their parking tickets and have not received the full evidence can seek a refund from Camden Council.



Camden issued more than 320,000 parking tickets in 2009 compared to 404,000 parking tickets in 2008.

‘Spy’ car brings in fines of £40,000

How long before stealthy CCTV Smart Cars go the way of the Cowboy Clampers?


The Bolton News

08 July 2010
More than 1,600 motorists have paid out almost £40,000 in fines in just five months after being caught parking illegally by a council Smart car kitted out with CCTV.
The Bolton council "spy" vehicle was introduced to catch parents who cause parking problems outside schools during drop-off and pick-up times.

It is also aimed at those who park in keep-clear zones outside schools, on single and double-yellow lines and on loading restrictions.

But six times as many motorists have been fined for parking offences away from schools after being caught on the spy car's 3.6 metre extendable cameras.

According to Big Brother Watch, an off-shoot of the pressure group The Taxpayers' Alliance, the vehicle is being used to make money for the council. A new report by the group claims that between November 2 - when the car hit the road - and March 31 the car gathered evidence to issue tickets to 1,631 motorists.

That brought in £39,495 in fines - just £13,405 less than the authority paid for the hi-tech vehicle.
The CCTV Smart car is equipped with two DVD writers that can produce instant evidence discs.
Last night, Town Hall chiefs heralded the Smart car a success.

A council spokesman said: " We brought in the CCTV Smart car to deal with problem areas and safety issues raised by residents and businesses, and it has proved very successful in doing this.
"For instance, 222 notices have been issued outside schools through the car, seven on pedestrian crossings, and 1,251 on loading restrictions put in place to address safety issues."

Nationally, information obtained by Big Brother Watch shows that there are 54 CCTV camera cars patrolling 31 local council areas.
From April last year to March this year, these cars gathered evidence to issue just under 188,000 fines, bringing in £8 million in revenues for the local councils.

Dylan Sharpe, campaign director of Big Brother Watch said: " The CCTV Smart car represents a very dangerous escalation in Britain's surveillance society.
"The vehicles are sent out to catch people and make money, with road safety only an afterthought.
"£8 million is an eye-watering amount to take in fines. It is surely only a matter of time before more councils start using these cars. The coalition government must act now and prevent that from happening."

Richmond Council urged to pay cash from illegally marked parking bay that raked £500,000 over five years in st margarets

Richmond and Twickenham Times
By Joanna Kilvington
23rd July 2010
Richmond Council is being urged to pay back hundreds of thousands of pounds in fines after admitting a parking bay that raked in £1,400 a day was illegally marked.

The error only came to light after motorist Nigel Wise took on the council over his own £50 fine for stopping at the lucrative loading bay in St Margarets, in April – and won.

Now he says the council should reimburse every motorist who was hit in the pocket at the bay, outside Tesco Metro, over the past five years.

A Freedom of Information request by Mr Wise revealed that between May 2007 and June 2010, fines totalling £229,600 were issued to drivers caught by a CCTV camera. Taking into account the previous two years, that figure rockets to about half a million pounds.

Neil Heron, of the Motorists’ Legal Challenge Fund, backed Mr Wise’s call for drivers to be paid back.
He said: “The council has a duty to refund motorists.
“In the scheme of things it will be a very small amount of money compared to the positive value of the council of saying sorry.”
The bay became notorious after it was revealed in 2005 the council took, on average, £1,400 in parking fines per day from drivers stopping there. Unlike motorists before him however, Mr Wise, a carer, decided to carry out some detective work only to discover it did not conform to traffic marking requirements.

The motorist appealed his ticket and last Friday he received notification it had been dropped.
Richmond Council confirmed yesterday that the markings had been re-painted. However, officials are refusing to pay back the cash taken in fines from motorists.

Councillor Clare Head, the council’s cabinet member for traffic, stressed no refunds would be made.
She said: “We need to make it absolutely clear, however, that this bay has always been very clearly marked as a loading bay, something that should be obvious to any motorist.
“Recent parking adjudicator decisions make it clear that the test of signage is adequate guidance rather than exactitude, slight or trivial deviations will be disregarded.
“The road markings have now been rectified.
“The council will not be refunding penalties paid in the same bay over the last five years.
“All of these individual cases are now closed and will not be re-opened.
“We are grateful to Mr Wise for bringing the technical issue of the road markings to our attention.”
Susan Fitz-Gibbon, director of Fitz-Gibbon letting agents, in St Margarets Road, urged a rethink.
She said: “We have tenants coming to pick up keys and things all the time and they just keep getting fined.”

Workers paint lines UNDER car

The Sun
By Guy Patrick
20th July 2010

A motorist was stunned when workmen hoisted her parked car off a street, painted double yellow lines beneath it - then replaced it complete with a PARKING TICKET.

Accountant Sally Baker, 39, left her Peugeot 206 at the side of a road for three hours after checking there were no parking restrictions in place.

But she realised something was wrong when she returned to Little Quay Street, Manchester, to find her vehicle pointing the other way.

Seconds later she spotted the freshly-painted lines - and was horrified to discover she had also been given a parking fine.

sally said: "I was absolutely astounded. I've been told they also hoisted a BMW and a Mini in an adjacent street, but I don't know if those cars got tickets as well.

"I parked up around 8.20am and cheked there were no restrictions. There were no road closures signs, no cones - nothing to suggest anything was about to happen in that road.

Parking fine warning to drivers in Reading

BBC News Berkshire
20th July 2010
A council is set to fine drivers for parking on pavements and grass verges to make up for a drop in
fines income.
Reading Council said there had been a 17% fall in the number of parking tickets issued across the borough.

It has warned drivers that a controlled parking zone could be created which would give traffic wardens new powers to issue fines.

Drivers have also been warned that they could be obstructing emergency vehicles by "inconsiderate" parking.

Verges 'chewed'

There is expected to be an initial period when drivers parking illegally in areas including East Reading, Tilehurst, Emmer Green and Caversham, will be warned before fines are issued.

Richard Willis, lead councillor for transport and strategic planning, said: "The council incurs quite a bill every year for people parking on grass verges, chewing them up and destroying the grass.
"At the moment there isn't really any council power to enfoorce this, the police have a limited power if someone has parked on the pavement but generally don't enforce it.

"What we have looked to do is to introduce a controlled parking zone which would allow traffic wardens to issue tickets to people who are parking illegally on the pavement or verges."

British drivers paying £10bn in fines

Metro
11th July 2010
Britain's drivers pay £10billion in road fines over their lifetime, a survey shows.
The 33.5 million motorists fork out an average £283each in penalties for speeding, parking fines and other minor offences over 50 years.
Londoners rack up the highest lifetime tally - £680 compared to just £90 for residents in Northern Ireland, who pay the least.
A total of 34 per cent of Britain's drivers have been fined for speeding at least once and seven per cent have been caught three or more times, revealed the survey of 1,017 motorists for esure car insurance.
Thirty-eight per cent have been handed at least one parking fine and seven per cemt have had three or more tickets.

Nationally, men are hit with £344 in fines during their driving careers compared to just £210 for women.
"Owning and running a car in the UK can be very costly, particularly with rising fuel costs. Avoidable charges for driving offences only make this more expensive," said Mike Pickard, esure's head of risk and underwriting.
"Making changes to your driving habits such as slowing down and driving more carefully will not only help make Britain's roads safer but also leave you better off financially."

£8 million from CCTV Smartcar ... but not this one!

Big Brother Watch reports on Drive by Spies: CCTV Cars issue £8m in fines in 6 months

However, the one below will not be hitting the motorists in South Tyneside for a while ...

Will this affect the BPA Award winner's reputation?

In March this year Lambeth Council won the British Parking Association's Enforcement Award. Now a scandal is set to rock the council. Raj Mistry has been dubbed 'a New Breed of Parking Manager' and appears on the front cover of this month's Parking Review.

Let us hope that actions in relation to the story below are swift and public.

Crooked Lambeth Council staff 'let themselves off parking fines'
Thursday 17th June 2010
By Matt Watts »

Crooked council workers have avoided heavy fines by letting themselves off parking tickets, a town hall whistleblower has claimed.

A member of staff at Lambeth Council exposed the actions of an unknown number of workers from the town hall’s parking monitoring team who have allegedly been cancelling their own penalty charge notices(PCNs).

The corrupt practice within the team that is supposed to oversee the parking fine appeals process allegedly took place up to April this year, but only emerged in a whistleblowing report published last week by the town hall.

Other allegations against staff included misuse of emergency parking badges, which employees had been using outside their own homes or when out shopping.

Neil Herron, head of parking lobby group Parking Appeals called the behaviour sickening.
He said: “This is on a par with the MPs’ expenses scandal. We can’t have civil servants abusing their positions in such a fashion.
“Given the difficulties many motorists and commercial fleets have with PCNs issued, often after the most minor of contraventions, this sort of behaviour will stick in everybody’s throats.”

Eight people have allegedly carried out a potential breach of trust in the parking division and action against them has been instigated by the council’s human resources department, according to the report.

Lambeth Council said for legal reasons it could not reveal exactly what they were guilty of.
The whistleblowing allegations update report, that was due to be discussed by Lambeth’s standards committee on Tuesday, stated: “Action is being taken against staff who are using their position in a number of ways that risk serious reputational damage to the integrity of the parking enforcement and dispensation processes maintained by the council.”

The council prides itself on a “firm but fair” parking policy, that saw the number of parking tickets given out by Lambeth parking attendants fall by 50,000 in 2008-09 to 181,375 tickets.
But £8.8m of parking fines were still handed to motorists in the borough in 2008-09, more than the cities of Manchester and Birmingham combined, according to campaign groups the Drivers’ Alliance and Taxpayers’ Alliance.

Mr Herron said Lambeth could not expect people to see the parking policy as fair until bad practice by workers was stamped out.

A Lambeth Council spokeswoman said: “The council places great importance on whistleblowing by staff as part of our determination to prevent and root out any fraud or malpractice. Lambeth is committed to a zero-tolerance approach against any wrong-doing, and our employees are well aware of that.
“They also know we value their contribution and co-operation in helping to ensure this. All allegations are investigated thoroughly and the council complies fully with its duty to protect whistleblowers.”

Which Council is in for a big, embarrassing fall from grace?

Rumour has it that staff at one London Borough have been cancelling their own PCNs and giving themselves parking dispensations.

Let us hope that this is not the 'vision for the future of parking enforcment' they had in mind when winning awards. Perhaps if council parking departments were reminded that they are delivering a service and ARE NOT private businesses

If true, then this is just as bad as MPs fiddling their expenses. Civil servants are not above the law and any such abuse must not be allowed to be swept under the carpet and evidence must be passed to the Police.

If true there must be public censure and dismissals no matter how high up the ladder the officers involved. Quiet pay-offs and resignations must not be allowed.

More to come in the next few days.

A helping hand for the motorist

A timely reminder given that the word behind the scenes is that councils are going to up the ante when it comes to parking fine revenue in order to make up any shortfall in their budgets.

A helping legal hand for the motorist
Daily Telegraph
4th April 2010

Philip Johnston argues why it's important to keep fighting when you think you've been unfairly penalised under one of many poorly administered or disproportionate motoring laws.

In Motoring a fortnight ago, David Williams detailed the avalanche of laws bearing down on drivers – from decriminalised parking offences to road pricing and pernickety new requirements like SORNs (statutory off-road notifications). But he could not have imagined in his wildest dreams that it might become illegal to smoke in your own family car.

OK, so far this is just an idea put forward by some very eminent doctors and has few supporters at Westminster. But had you suggested 10 years ago that smoking would be banned in pubs you would have been thought slightly mad, so don't rule it out in the next 10 years.

The aim of this law would be to prevent children being exposed to smoke in confined spaces; but because of the difficulties of seeing if there are kids in the vehicle, all cars would need to be smoke-free zones.

Of course, some privately owned vehicles already are smoke-free under the existing ban. If they are a place of work, such as a taxi or the cab of a lorry which is part of a fleet, then smoking is forbidden.

There may be an argument on safety grounds for banning smoking because it is a distraction from driving; but so is putting on a CD, reaching for a sweet or adjusting the wing mirror. Where do you stop?

It is all a question of proportion – and, as far as the motorist is concerned, the Government has already gone too far – though this is not entirely the fault of Whitehall. Local councils are culpable for the expansion of parking zones into leafy suburbs where they have no purpose other than to raise money.

The 1984 Road Traffic Regulation Act makes it clear that charges must not be levied to raise revenue, but only to make appropriate traffic-management provision. Yet most councils ignore this. According to the Local Government Finance Statistics 2009, councils last year made £1.3 billion from on- and off-street parking, and spent about £820 million on maintaining and enforcing the regime. So the surplus revenue from parking was more than £500 million.

Last year, more than nine million parking tickets were issued – up from 5.7 million in six years.

Parking laws in this country are unjust and often incompetently administered. Yet who speaks up for the harassed, frustrated and angry motorist who feels powerless to do anything about it? Certainly not the political parties because they run the councils that make the money.

There is a coalition of motoring organisations which recently published a Manifesto on the Reform of Parking and Traffic Enforcement calling for the parties to commit to tightening the regulations to ensure that parking charges and penalties are properly and legally applied. This is backed by the London Motorists Action Group (lmag.org.uk), the Drivers Alliance (driversalliance.org.uk) and The Motorists' Legal Challenge Fund (motoristslegal challenge.co.uk)

The decriminalisation of parking, which began in London in 1991 and allowed local authorities to take over parking enforcement, has added to the sense of grievance among those fined for infractions because the penalties are often out of all proportion to the offence and there is no means of pursuing justice through the courts.

But again help is at hand: ParkingAppeals.co.uk specialises in fighting such cases – and winning them, too. Did you know, for instance, that a ticket in a CPZ is invalid unless there are signs indicating a restriction at all entrances to the zone? You would be amazed how many local councils fail to follow the letter of the law, as they must.

For other motoring offences that still fall under the criminal law, like speeding, there is an option to go to court. But who will risk it when the Justice Ministry brings in plans so that defendants who can afford it have to pay their own legal costs? Or why go to the small claims court to fight an unfair clamping by a bunch of roadside cowboys when it can take 18 months to get a hearing?

But it may be worth the hassle – and there are practical guides to negotiating the maze of motoring laws, the best of which is probably (for England and Wales) Fight a Motoring Ticket: How to Claim Against Parking, Speeding and Other Motoring Offences by Jeanette Miller and Jonathan Egan. This is essentially a self-help kit explaining the legal procedures involved and the best way to maximise your chances of success. Certainly, if we all give up at the first hurdle then the tyranny will spread.

If they are going to quote the law at us, we should make sure they are observing it as well. If you are fined simply because your parking ticket has fallen off the windscreen, take time to check that the penalty notice was legally issued, properly worded, accurately dated and does not charge extra for processing credit-card payments. Often the authorities get it wrong. Don't let them play fast and loose with the laws they expect the rest of us to follow.

Philip Johnston is the author of Bad Laws (Constable) £8.99 available from books.telegraph.co.uk.