Is this a traffic sign?

According to the Traffic Penalty Tribunal ... the mantra they chant is 'as long as no reasonable motorist could be misled' ... and 'the meaning of the restriction is clear' ...

However, Manuel, let me explain ....

and sorry to be pedantic but the law is so ... and many people pore over matters to ensure that there is no confusion, but when confusion reigns ... lawyers earn their money ... and Judges clarify the law (and they do not wear wigs Karl Pilkington as disguises so that they don't get recognised ... although Judge Cottle in the Peter Harry case may well buy a blonde one after deciding that forgery by a council officer was a 'trivial matter.' That may make 32 million motorists a tad angry).

Meanwhile, back to traffic signing law which, is as boring as watching yellow paint dry ... traffic signs (as prescribed by TSRGD 2002 referenced at Sction 64 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984) must be of the colour, shape and size of the 'pictures and dimensions' in the books that clever people spent lots of time making ... otherwise they are not traffic signs!!! If they are not 'traffic signs' they are not legal, something that the Traffic Penalty Tribunal adjudicators seem to find difficulty in grasping (although PATAS adjudicators seem to understand what the law requires them to do).

So, in the world of the 'independent' Manchester based TPT (who receive 60p from every ticket issued), if the meaning of the sign is clear ... then that is good enough ....

Don't laugh ...

Would a ticket be valid at this location?

Or this one?

or ... and if you've had a little drink or two and starting to slur ...

... or feel as though the living dead are being paid from the public purse ...

... so, Mr. Parking Adjudicator ... the meaning of the sign below is quite clear but it ain't a traffic sign as required by Section 64 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 or prescribed by the strict and pedantic diagrams of TSRGD 2002 so check out the words of Justices

Rix, Ouseley and Bennett



Would any reasonable motorist be misled? Of course not but it ain't legal ... and nor is the fine!

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.

What happens when council officers tell lies ...

Many council officers have 'misbehaved' in many ways and told lies that would even make Pinnochio blush.


However, not having wooden noses it is often difficult to prove when a council officer is lying ... and that is why hard evidence is required.

Evidence of a very serious nature is being collated against a number of local authorities who, let us be polite, have 'misled' the Secretary of State into granting Civil Enforcement powers. If any of these council officers think that they will be protected by their council's insurers then I would suggest that they look at the legislation below. Any council officers who attempts to support or protect fellow officers will be in the frame as well. Point to ponder as all you read this.

There is no 'amnesty' should an officer retire or resign, and they may also personally face claims for damages should a civil case be taken against them or criminal matters investigated. I am aware that lawyers are already instructed in at least one case. Perhaps the first arrest of a council officer will bring home the gravity of councils 'attempting to expose individuals to the risk of a loss' through deliberate wrongdoing or recklessness and send a warning shot across the boughs.

Meanwhile, thanks to those out there with honesty and integrity who are not prepared to be the 'patsies' for civil servants who seem to have forgotten a long time ago that their duty is to serve (and be civil while they're at it).


Statutory Instrument 2004 No. 3082
The Local Authorities (Indemnities for Members and Officers) Order 2004

Restrictions on indemnities
6. - (1) No indemnity may be provided under this Order in relation to any action by, or failure to act by, any member or officer which -
(a) constitutes a criminal offence; or
(b) is the result of fraud, or other deliberate
wrongdoing or recklessness on the part of that member or officer.

(2) Notwithstanding paragraph (1)(a), an indemnity may be provided in relation to -
(a) subject to article 8 below, the defence of any criminal proceedings brought against the officer or member; and
(b) any civil liability arising as a consequence of any action or failure to act which also constitutes a criminal offence.

(3) No indemnity may be provided under this Order in relation to the making by the member or officer indemnified of any claim in relation to an alleged defamation of that member or officer but may be provided in relation to the defence by that member of officer of any allegation of defamation made against him.

Tell me this isn't fraud

I met with a certain council officer a couple of years ago and he admitted that the council BCC were aware that there were a great deal of signs and lines across the county which were non-compliant. He was concerned because the consultants who had been brought in were just tasked with identifing those which needed renewing due to maintenance issues and not compliance issues. He admitted that he had spent his weekends checking compliance.

His, and the other reports will be available. I would suggest that someone starts asking the questions. Would also suggest that the council officer I met checks his position and his conscience. A little reminder.

2 Fraud by false representation
(1) A person is in breach of this section if he—
(a) dishonestly makes a false representation, and
(b) intends, by making the representation—
(i) to make a gain for himself or another, or
(ii) to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss.
(2) A representation is false if—
(a) it is untrue or misleading, and
(b) the person making it knows that it is, or might be, untrue or misleading.
(3) “Representation” means any representation as to fact or law, including a
representation as to the state of mind of—
(a) the person making the representation, or
(b) any other person.
(4) A representation may be express or implied.
(5) For the purposes of this section a representation may be regarded as made if it (or
anything implying it) is submitted in any form to any system or device designed to
receive, convey or respond to communications (with or without human intervention).

3 Fraud by failing to disclose information
A person is in breach of this section if he—
(a) dishonestly fails to disclose to another person information which he is under a
legal duty to disclose, and
(b) intends, by failing to disclose the information—
(i) to make a gain for himself or another, or
(ii) to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss.

As the Police begin investigations into criminality across the country and cases start to be prepared for the High Court I assume it is only a matter of time before action is demanded in Marlow. Taking money to which you are not entitled is NOT a civil matter.

Council still ticketing drivers despite signs admission
Thursday 21st January 2010
By James Nadal »

PARKING fines are still being dealt out on a Marlow street – despite a council's admission that signs were wrong.

A secret filming sting by UKIP in November prompted Buckinghamshire County Council to review parking bays in Institute Road.
Although BCC acknowledged the errors motorists are still being given tickets.

Figures obtained under the Freedom of Information Act by the Free Press show there were 36 fines dished out in the first four weeks after the admission was made.

Wycombe District Council, which is responsible for enforcement, said it is “still waiting for conclusive guidance” from BCC about which bays are correctly marked.

But there was confusion after BCC said it was up to WDC, which it had not heard from.

Spokesman Richard Wells said: “As far as we're concerned all the bays are enforceable but it's Wycombe's responsibility to enforce the tickets, it's nothing to do with the county. The ball is in their court.”

An audit has taken place and new signs and lines have been ordered.
UKIP says thousands of motorists are entitled to refunds because various roads across the town have incorrectly marked bays.

A timely reminder of why we are at the High Court ...

It has been a long journey. The investigation began in 2005 and it took over a hundred cancelled tickets before the council 'dared' go to adjudication.

This is what NCP were up to in Sunderland and what was revealed in an award winning BBC Inside Out Documentary. However, the Parking Attendants' behaviour grabbed the headlines. The council officers' behaviour is yet to be revealed.

To get 'decriminalised' powers in 2003 certain Sunderland City Council officers 'misled' the Secretary of State. Decriminalised Parking Enforcement (DPE) allows councils to keep the money issued from parking fines, rather than the money going into a central pot. That is why revenue from parking has hit £1.9 billion per annum.

The number of fines in Sunderland went from 3000 before DPE in 2003 to 30,000 after. More will be revealed in the coming weeks and we will start to publish (in the public interest) all the documents released by the Government Office for the North East and the Department for Transport which will show how many people knew what was going on yet not one Governemnt official was prepared to intervene to prevent motorists being fined illegally.

The following Youtube clips will help to set the scene ...

Councillor jailed for bribery

Perhaps a bright spotlight will be shining on elected members and officers elsewhere in the country very soon.
Question is 'will we have to build more prisons?'

Ex-councillor jailed over bribery
BBC News

Jeremy Baker had denied taking two bribes totalling £750
A former Portsmouth city councillor has been jailed for a year after being found guilty of accepting a bribe.

Jeremy Baker, 47, from Cosham, was convicted of accepting £500 for making sure a planning decision for a property developer got through.

A secret film of the incident was shown to jurors at Winchester Crown Court during Baker's trial.
He was convicted of a corruption charge but cleared of another. They related to his time on the planning committee.

Estate agent David Maunder made the recording in an agreement with a property developer who felt he was poorly treated by planners, jurors were told.

The developer felt aggrieved about the planning committee's dealings over his three properties in London Road, St Helens Parade and Kingston Parade, the court heard.

On one occasion, Mr Maunder said to Baker, "right I've got a little something for you" before counting £500 out on the table, jurors were told.

Baker, who was cleared of taking a £250 bribe, was jailed for a year on Thursday.

NCP Services Whistleblower wins case ...

Do you work as a Civil Enforcement Officer and have concerns over the legality of your actions?
Do you work for a council in the Parking Services Department or Highways or even the legal department and have concerns over the legality of your council's enforcement?
Read the decision below...

NCP Services employee Geoff Topliss wins unfair dismissal case following allegations of fraud

A former NCP Services Ltd employee who claimed he was unfairly dismissed after alleging that NCP Services Ltd had defrauded the DVLA of over £1m has won his case at an employment tribunal today (11 December).

Geoff Topliss, of Canterbury, Kent, was represented by Tony Bertin, of Employment Relations Solicitors, at the Central London Employment Tribunal. The tribunal has awarded him over £160,000 in compensation and costs.

Read more here and the full decision here
Contact details for the firm that handled his case here