Richmond Council banks over £150,000 from former terrorists activities

Last week we reported that Richmond Council had banked over £10,000 from a former terrorist who had been employed as a Parking Attendant, but that was based on figures released by the council for his last three months employment.

Now we reveal how much the council banked while he operated for over three years.

Mustapha Boutarfa, 32, was arrested by Scotland Yard's anti-terrorist squad in 1996 and extradited from Britain to France two years later. He was subsequently jailed for his involvement in a bomb attack on the Paris Metro - which killed eight people and wounded 80.

However, he managed to get back into Britain and gained employment as a Parking Attendant with NCP Services.

It is reported that when his employer, NCP Services, learned of his background - three years after he first started work - it suspended him, saying it could "understand public concern about this matter".

Now, following a Freedom of Information request, we have received details of the total number and amount of tickets issued by Mr. Boutarfa ... and it is quite staggering (shown in the table below).

What is even more staggering is the council's excuse as to why they are not going to refund the money.

No refunds because ... being a terrorist ...
"does not constitute grounds for cancellation of penalty charge notices issued by him ... the parking regulations do not allow this."
Parveen Bindra, Legal Services Department, Richmond Council

Not sure whether the legislators would have factored this into the equation when drafting the Notice to Owner.

Grounds for cancellation (tick relevant box)
[] The contravention did not occur
[] The Traffic Order was invalid
[] I was not the keeper at the time of the contravention
[] We are a hire firm
[] The vehicle was taken without my consent
[] The Parking Attendant was or used to be a terrorist

Regardless of the claim that it 'does not constitute grounds for appeal' it is clear that there has been a gross dereliction of duty and Richmond have a vicarious liability for the failings of their contractor ... who failed to even undertake the most basic of checks. They have also benefitted from 'unjust enrichment' which could precipitate a legal action or complaint to the District Auditor.

I am sure that someone will wish to challenge Richmond on this point.