Parking refunds due in Edinburgh ...

On closer inspection we are starting to find that many council officers speak with forked tongue.

Yet again, instead of simply apologising for the error they attempt to twist words to say what they want them to mean rather than what they actually say.
If Mr. Leithead is wrong then why go to the expense of correcting something which they claim is already correct?

Is it any wonder that the public is not prepared to accept this any more?


Parking fines in Edinburgh have been illegal for more than a decade, claims former police chief
Apr 19 2010 Rory Reynolds

ALL parking fines issued to drivers in Edinburgh over the past 12 years are illegal, according to a former top traffic cop.

Chris Leithead, the former head of London Metropolitan Police's traffic branch, claims the city council have been fining drivers under "non-existent legislation".

The former superintendent said the local authority had made a fatal error in the wording of the fines and has urged drivers to appeal the penalties or demand a refund.
Edinburgh City Council admit they are to introduce a new Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) but insist there was no issue in the first place.

Leithead, who is now an adviser to councils on decriminalised parking, said: "I believe Edinburgh's main TRO is not lawful.
"It refers to an initial charge for parking places with pay-and-display machines or meters - a term that shouldn't be there.
"When they decriminalised parking, the council were required to amend their TROs to remove the term because it came from a section of the Road Traffic Regulation Act redundant under the new scheme.
"But Edinburgh are still using 'initial charge' in the main TRO, which covers most of the city.
"A local authority can only do what they are empowered to do by law and Edinburgh are making charges under non-existent legislation."

Leithead, 69, said drivers who try to reclaim their fines have a very good case.
He added: "Motorists who have been fined while using a paid parking place have the strongest case.
"That's what the initial charge refers to. But others, such as those who got a ticket for being on yellow lines, could argue they have a case because the whole TRO is unenforceable due to the law."

Edinburgh City Council have issued 920,000 penalty charge notices in the last four years and collected around £7million in fines last year.
Chief executive Tom Aitchison rejected Leithead's claims. He said: "There's no provision in the legislation which necessitates the council to give the period when payment is required a certain name. Therefore, any term can be used."



But he said the council's new TRO changes the wording that Leithead says make the orders illegal. He added: "It removes the words 'initial charge'."

PATAS puts TPT to shame ...

The Parking and Traffic Appeals Service (PATAS) is behaving in a correct and proper fashion when it comes to applying the law.

In this case a decision (left) involving an incorrectly marked bay sees the appeal allowed. The decision is so important (and recent) that I have decided to publish it in order for others to use it in defences against similarly, incorrectly and illegally marked restrictions.

Many readers of this blog and parking ticket appellants will have been frustrated by the Traffic Penalty Tribunal's (for appeals against outside of London authorities) attempts to 'dumb down' and subvert the legislation by attempting apply a concept that the law was merely 'a guide' and that a sign, any sign was good enough if 'no reasonable person could be misled.'


PATAS adjudicators appear to be distancing themselves from this 'offensive' stance which implies partiality towards the local authorities.

This is not how the law or the Operational Guidance to Local Authorities was written. The extracts below from the Operational Guidance is explicit ... and shames many decisions by TPT adjudicators. What, or more importantly who are TPT trying to protect?

Has TPT's adjudicators attempts to 'dumb down' the legislation been deliberate to assist local authorities?

Has TPT been aware that many local authorities have misled the Secretary of State into granting Civil Parking Enforcement powers by claiming that ALL their lines and signs comply with TSRGD 2002 and as such, if proven that was the case, the local authorities could have their CPE powers removed thereby affecting TPT's income stream (they are remunerated solely from PCN revenue at the rate of 60p per PCN)?

Is TPT worried that by applying signing law strictly as is required it could affect the decision of adjudicator Andrew Keenan which currently finds itself before the High Court?

Is the Department for Transport worried that they have attempted to support illegal signing and TRO activity by local authorities by failing to investigate complaints and, as such may be subject to criminal complaints?

As a criminal investigation is launched into Sunderland City Council's parking department one has to ask 'How much did the DfT know? Why, when they were aware that Sunderland was acting illegally did they fail to act?'

Let us hope the criminal investigation leaves no stone unturned, especially when interviewing the DfT and GONE officials whose emails referred to 'fraud' and 'illegal.'

Annex E (above) makes interesting reading, especially E5. Sunderland's CPZ ... the subject of the Judicial Review, covers the whole of the City Centre and is over a mile in diameter with hundreds of streets. Seems to be at odds with what is written in the legislation ... but they always knew that.

Perhaps questions need to be asked also as to why ALL the Senior Officers involved in Sunderland are no longer in post and the final one has opted for early retirement, leaving in September.