More successes ... more cancellations ... praise for Southwark Council

Tickets cancelled. Refunds given. Great work by the NoToMob team BUT respect to Southwark Council for making the refunds and correcting the error

Hundreds of parking tickets cancelled
South London Press
Tuesday, 01 March 2011

MORE than 550 parking tickets have been cancelled after campaigners exposed them to be unlawful, it has emerged.
Southwark council fined 557 drivers after extending a loading bay in Valmar Road, near Coldharbour Lane in Camberwell.

But an investigation by campaign group NoToMob revealed the town hall had not issued a legal traffic management order about the extension – so all the tickets were invalid.
The fines were issued between January and November last year.

NotoMob was set up by motorbike riders to challenge what it describes as “revenue-driven parking enforcement”.
A spokesman for the group said: “Town hall parking enforcement is about revenue generation and not road safety.
“CCTV enforcement is being used to rake in cash at honeytraps while locations such as school crossings are being ignored.
“We plan to expose all councils which issue tickets under dubious circumstances.”

A Southwark council spokesman said: “As soon as we realised the mistake it was corrected.
“All drivers who had paid the penalty charge notices were contacted and given refunds and all other tickets were cancelled.”

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'."

A £2,000,000,000 a year industry

£2bn parking bill
By Tom Latchem, 19/12/2009
News of the World

GREEDY councils are exploiting motorists by raking in almost £2 BILLION a year in parking fees and fines.

Last year drivers paid a record £1.9bn to town halls in England - 8 per cent up on the previous year and TREBLE the £638m for 1997/98 when Labour came to power.

That means around £60 a year is going straight from the pocket of every motorist into town hall coffers. Experts fear councils are ripping off car owners to plug gaps in their finances as the squeeze on public spending tightens.

The revenue bonanza is biggest in areas like central London and Brighton where parking is scarcest - and many town halls are believed to make most of their money in fines.
Figures released by the Department of Communities and Local Government do not differentiate between meter charges and penalties.

But a spokesman said: "Parking charges are a tool to manage demand for road use and should not be used for raising revenue.

Jennifer Dunn of the Taxpayers' Alliance said: "Motorists are being treated like cash cows. Too often we see unscrupulous and target-driven enforcement of parking."

Top ten revenue earners in London:
1. Westminster £180m
2. Camden £80m
3. Kensington & Chelsea £77m
4. Islington £55m
5. Wandsworth £51m
6. Hammersmith & Fulham £47m
7. Lambeth £40m
8. Tower Hamlets £31m
9. Ealing £30m
10. Hackney £29m.
Top ten elsewhere: 1. Brighton & Hove £38m 2. Birmingham £24m 3. Manchester £20m 4. Leeds £19m 5. Milton Keynes £16m 6. Newcastle upon Tyne £15m 7. Kent £15m 8. Bristol £14m 9. Liverpool £14m 10. City of Nottingham £13m.

CCTV Refunds for motorists

RULING THAT MAY QUASH THOUSANDS OF CAR FINES WAIVED:
Rachel Johnson's fines were declared invaled by the adjudicator
Daily Express

Tuesday August 4,2009
By Andy Russell

THOUSANDS of parking fines could be scrapped after a test case victory over tickets issued by roving spy camera cars.
Businesswoman Rachel John­son was jubilant after she exposed a loophole and had three £60 fines quashed in a landmark ruling.

Rachel, 34, who runs an off licence in New Brighton, Merseyside, said: “We got three tickets in a week. It was outrageous. It is absolutely disgusting that the council uses such sneaky tactics to issue fines.
“There should be clear signs notifying motorists cameras are in operation. They are operating like prowlers, lying in wait.
“These spy camera cars are an alarming invasion of ­privacy and smack of a way to raise money.”

Outraged married mother of three Rachel took her case against Wirral Borough Council to the Traffic Penalty Tribunal and won.
The adjudicator decided the ­penalties were invalid as there were no warnings of ­cameras in ­operation.
A letter notifying her of the decision said local authorities should use the new ­generation of Smart cars with periscope-mounted cameras only ­“sparingly”, in areas where ­wardens cannot be used.

Parking justice campaigner Neil Herron, founder of parking appeals.co.uk, is calling for all councils to refund penalties imposed with similar spy ­camera evidence.
He said: “This is yet another victory for motorists against the Big Brother tactics that are used to penalise drivers for simply parking their car in a public place. Councils are ­playing fast and loose with the legal requirements. All councils that have issued fines unlawfully with these spy camera cars now have a duty to refund the cash, regardless of whether the motorists concerned appeal.”

He added: “I hope they do the decent thing and make the refunds quickly. Otherwise anyone who has paid a fine under these circumstances should write to the Traffic Penalty ­Tribunal seeking redress.”

Tory councillor Sue Taylor, who backed Rachel’s fight, said: “This landmark ruling could open the floodgates to thousands of other drivers.
“Councils need to introduce a system of erecting temporary signs in places where they are operating.
“That will discourage motorists from parking illegally and that should be their aim rather than simply cashing in on ­collecting fines.”
Wirral council said it was reviewing the way its spy car was used to issue parking fines.

More refunds to come as Oxford Council lose High Court case

Another council another blunder. Oxford's accounts will be published shortly and any resident can raise an objection that their accounts cannot contain unlawfully derived income.

Click here for a pro-forma letter.

The same applies to any other council which has been enforcing unlawful restrictions. The 'peasants' revolt' will ensure that justice is done and local authorities reckless attitude towards their legal responsibilities is stopped.

BUSGATE FINES:
High Court rejects review
Oxford Mail
Monday 20th July 2009

A HIGH Court judge has rejected Oxfordshire County Council’s bid for a judicial review on whether drivers have been unlawfully fined for going through the High Street bus gate.
But the council has re-applied for an oral hearing, and a decision will be made in the next six weeks on whether one will go ahead.

Two years ago, the council installed enforcement cameras in High Street to keep most vehicles out during the day.

But earlier this year, it emerged appeals by motorists led to a Traffic Penalty Tribunal ruling that the council had not been using the right law to fine them.

The tribunal said the council put in a valid prohibition for vehicles, but then wrongly penalised them for entering a bus lane because the area is not actually a bus lane.
Adjudicators upheld a number of appeals, but the council contested the ruling and last month applied to the High Court for the judicial review.

A spokesman for the Royal Courts of Justice said: “Permission for a judicial review was refused on June 26.”
Council spokesman Paul Smith said: “The council intends to pursue this — this is not the end of the matter.”

Neil Herron, of Parking Appeals, which advises drivers on fines legislation, said last night: “It’s not all over yet for the county council, but if it loses the oral hearing then it should abide by the Traffic Penalty Tribunal’s ruling and should refund the drivers who have been fined.”

The council collected £635,435 in fines in the first year of camera enforcemen between March 2007 and March last year.