Eric Brittain Letters

Published in The Journal 07 Feb 07

Apology to come and a refund too
Can I refer you to my letter of December 13, headed by you "The little people are hung out to dry"?
The almost three months of silence from the head ombudsman in York was ended by my receiving a letter dated December 8 informing me that she had made an arrangement (contrary to my complaint to her) for the chief executive of Sunderland City Council to look again at my case.
On reflection, he feels the council should have recognised my exceptional personal circumstances: my age and my worry about the medical appointment I was travelling to at the time (May 4, 2005). I was further informed the council will apologise to me and refund the fine imposed on me at the time, and pay me a further £50 in recognition of my time and trouble in pursuing my complaint.
It would appear all the above has come about because of a judicial review in August 2006 which, the ombudsman's investigator informed me, supported my complaint against Sunderland Parking Services who had been using parking charge notices that were not compliant with the specimen in the Road Traffic Act, ie they did not show a date of issue. Should any of your readers be interested in a copy of the judicial review, I will be happy to supply one to The Journal.
Eric Brittain
Washington

Chief Executive response to above letter
Published in The Journal 20 Feb 07

Letter not an accurate reflection of inquiry
Below is an edited extract of a letter from the chief executive of Sunderland City Council to Mr E Brittain, whose letter headlined "Apology to come and a refund too" was carried in Voice of the North on February :
"The judicial review to which you refer (and which did not involve Sunderland) was not relevant to the outcome of your complaint to the Ombudsman.
"That decision did not impact on undated penalty charge notices (PCNs) that have already been issued and on which there was no outstanding appeal.
"In other wordds, PCNs such as yours that had been paid were not affected by that judicial review.
"The Ombudsman confirmed this in her letter to you of December 8, stating she had 'not found maladministration in the way the council dealt with you as one amongst the class of people who paid a PCN that had only the date of contravention.'"
The £80 payment to you was made as a consequence of my review of your particular circumstances. It was not in any way connected with the judicial review, nor was it made because your mitigating circumstances had not been properly considered earlier.
The Ombudsman confirmed this, stating "inquiries have not revealed any grounds for believing that the council acted with maladministration in considering your mitigating circumstances."
Your published letter was not, in my opinion, a fair or accurate reflection of the Ombudsman's investigation into your complaint.
It entirely ignores the credit given to the council by the Ombudsman for its "positive and proactive approach to the review of decriminalised parking enforcement."
It is disappointing to receive such an ungracious response to the council's efforts to remedy your greviances. I am sending a copy of this letter to the Ombudsman and The Journal in order to set the record straight.
Ged Fitzgerald, Chief Executive, Sunderkand City Council, PO Box 100, Sunderland.

Response to Ged Fitzgerald letter
Published in The Journal 23 Feb 07
My letter only stated facts as I know them

The chief executive of Sunderland City Council has accused me of not giving an accurate reflection of the Ombudsman's investigation into my complaint ("Letter not an accurate reflection of inquiry" and "Apology to come and a refund too", Voice of the North, February 20 and 7). My letter to you only stated the facts as I know them.
The Ombudsman and her investigator were fully aware my complaint to her was not about my health on the day a penalty charge notice was placed on my car, but about the non-compliant notices in use by Sunderland Parking Services at the time of my so-called offence.
Not one mention was made in her letter to me, dated December 8 2006, about the judicial review and what Sunderland Council's reply had been.
My dispute with Sunderland Parking Services has never been about money, but about them issuing me with a notice rather than applying compassion and issuing me with a warning, in accordance with the Road Traffic Act. However, due to the absolute intransigence of the parking service, I was forced to amend my claim against them when I got the information about the notice not complying with the law from your newspaper.
Perhaps the chief executive might like to challenge his staff to get to the bottom of this matter. He is the only possible voice the individual has when taking on these councils. As I am only trying to be honest and fair, I trust he will look on my plea favourably.
Eric Brittain
Washington

Apology
Published in The Journal 26 Feb 07
We offer our apologies to reader Eric Brittain for printing extracts from a letter which he had not intended for publication ("My letter only stated facts as I know them", Voice of the North, February 23).
An edited version of the letter he wished us to carry is carried below:

I received a letter on February 17 from the chief executive of Sunderland City Council which, apparently, was in response to a letter of mine, part of which was published in Voice of the North ("Apology to come and a refund too", February 7).
It is not my intention to enter into a slanging match, but this gentleman should be the last to accuse me of ungraciousness. There has been a lot of water under the bridge since May 4, 2005, and there is not enough space to tell Journal readers the whole story.
However, I find it most strange after nearly two years of the council refusing my claim on compassionate grounds (which is covered by the Road Traffic Act), it is only when they have been confronted with an alternative claim supported by a judicial review that the chief executive informed the Ombudsman he has now decided to look again at my case and, on reflection, he feels that the council could have recognised my exceptional personal circumstances, my age (79) and my worry about the medical appointment I was attending on May 4, 2005.
I was informed by the Ombudsman the council will apologise to me, refund my fine and pay me a further £50 in recognition of my time and trouble in pursuing my complaint.
Neither the chief executive nor the Ombudsman asked me if I was agreeable to this form of settlement.
If anyone has been ungracious, it is the chief executive who agreed with the Ombudsman the council would apologise, but instead of doing so himself passed the matter back to the customer services department.
I have nothing to hide and would be prepared to hand over my file on this distasteful episode to anyone who is interested in fairness and justice for the individual.
In conclusion, I have no reason to be grateful to Sunderland Parking Services for the refund of my fine after almost two long years of being ignored by them.
Eric Brittain
Washington