Westminster parking contract blunder ...

I am sure that there will be many motorists out there who have made simple mistakes and have ended up with a penalty. However, the biggest parking enforcement council is 'allowed' to just sweep another 'mistake' under the carpet and start again.
It's about time that someone, somewhere got a grip before there is no credibility left and parking enforcement is brought into total national disrepute.
Nothing short of a full, independent investigation showing warts 'n' all will be acceptable, and would finally put all matters beyond doubt.

Inquiry call after Westminster Council admits bungle
BBC News

Westminster has been embroiled in numerous parking rows in 2010
A full investigation into Westminster Council's parking department has been demanded by campaigners after BBC London learned it cancelled the tendering of a contract due to a legal flaw and must start from scratch.

The council named Mouchel as preferred bidder for the four-year, £50m contract to provide parking enforcement services for the central London borough.
But the process was scrapped when in-house lawyers pointed out they had "judged the preferred bidder on price criteria which went beyond what was originally published to tenderers".

Westminster insists both contracts were properly tendered and maintains it acted within the rules at all times.
Mouchel has made no comment.

It comes after two separate inquiries were launched into contracts previously awarded by Westminster's parking department.

In one of the inquiries, the EU is investigating Partnerships in Parking (PiP), a body set up by the council to allow several local authorities to join forces to buy cheap parking services.

Westminster is supposed to be the flagship parking enforcement authority and yet, once again, we have another blunder
Neil Herron, parking campaigner

Canadian company Verrus was awarded the contract to provide pay-and-display services, pay-by-phone, parking tickets and debt collection to the councils.
But it is alleged that, when additional councils joined PiP, they broke European Union rules by automatically starting to use Verrus, rather than tendering it out.

In the other inquiry, which started in February, police are investigating allegations of fraud against two senior officers at Westminster Council.
That case concerned the awarding of another multi-million pound parking enforcement contract to a different private company.

'Flagship authority'
The latest revelation about the Mouchel contract has led parking campaigner Neil Herron, of Parking Appeals, to call for a full investigation into contract procedures at the authority.
He said: "Westminster is supposed to be the flagship parking enforcement authority and yet, once again, we have another blunder.
"We have seen illegal controlled parking zones, Diplomatic Bays not compliant and police investigations.
"It is about time a full, independent investigation was conducted into the whole of the parking enforcement regime."

Leith Penny, Westminster Council's director of city management, said: "Westminster Council has suspended the procurement process for parking enforcement following the discovery of a flaw in the contract document.
"To be fair and transparent to those involved in the process we have decided to end the current procurement process.
"We will instead start a new accelerated procurement process with a successful tenderer expected to be announced in about three months time."

It is the latest in a series of controversies to embroil Westminster Council's parking department.
In February, BBC London revealed Westminster's diplomatic parking bays had not had the correct authorisation for three decades, meaning millions of pounds of fines may be unlawful.
In January it was caught ordering officers to find ways to use parking to make more revenue, in an apparent breach of the law.
Westminster took £72m of revenue from parking last year, almost twice as much as the next highest earning London council.

Westminster propose increase in parking charges

It seems as that there is a shortfall in Westminster and money needs to be found from somewhere. However, parking enforcement cannot be used to raise revenue.

It is anticipated that there will be some very serious resistance to the move to extract more and more money from motorists and there seems to be no long-term planning or logic behind this decision which will be fiercely resisted by residents, businesses, commercial operators and individual motorists.

Councillor Chalkley seems to be throwing down many gauntlets to many groups but instead of courting public support is simply ensuring a 'gathering of the clans' for one almighty public airing of Westminster's Parking Endforcement Policy past, present and future.

Let's hope there are no dancing skeletons!

BBC Online report here

Westminster's Parking Plan 'illegal'

More sterling efforts from LMAG (London Motorists Action Group)
member Paul Pearson who has been splashed over the press and media with this latest revelation. The parking 'industry' is set to come under very close scrutiny in the next few months with three cases listed for the High Court and a 'gathering of the clans' taking place with LMAG teaming up with the Drivers Alliance and the Taxpayers Alliance to support the Motorists Legal Challenge Fund which aims to secure justice for Britain's motorists who are ready to 'Rage Against the Parking Machine.'

At will be the fivers and tenners from across the country that will ensure that justice is seen to be done in the most public of fashions and this offensive stealth tax forced to revert back to proper parking enforcement for the right reasons.

To donate to the fighting fund click here

London council 'misleading' over 'illegal parking plan'
Ed Davey BBC News, London

Westminster already makes more from parking than any London borough
A council has been accused of a "potentially illegal" attempt to use parking charge rises to raise revenue after BBC London obtained a document described as a "smoking gun".

The news comes after Westminster Council, which has a £22m overspend on its books, set out a series of proposals that include raising parking charges.
They would involve a 60p-per-hour pay-and-display increase and extending the period in which people are charged to park, from 6.30pm until midnight.

Councillor Danny Chalkley, cabinet member for city management, insisted the changes were solely an attempt to tackle congestion.
Asked whether the changes were proposed to plug the gap in Westminster's finances, Mr

Chalkley said: "It's not correct that we are doing this to revenue raise, we are doing this to keep streets running freely."
It appears on the strength of the evidence that Westminster have a case to answer
Mark Cran QC

However, BBC London has seen an internal council briefing, dated 12 January, which makes it clear the "key drivers" for this year's budget include an attempt to address the overspend.

The report continues: "Officers were asked to go away and look more closely at parking and community safety to find reductions or additional income.
"The areas of parking and community safety have been earmarked to contribute the majority of the £14m [the sum Westminster says it needs to find]."

Responding to the document, parking campaigner Barrie Segal accused Mr Chalkley of being "disingenuous".
"This report is the smoking gun", he said. "The briefing document flatly contradicts [Mr Chalkley's] public statements."

Councillor Chalkley claims the changes are not to raise money

In 1995, a High Court judge ruled against neighbouring Camden Council, saying it could not use parking to raise revenue.
Mark Cran QC, the barrister who successfully brought the 1995 case against Camden Council, told BBC London: "It sounds as though the evidence is stronger in this instance than it was in the Camden case.

"It appears on the strength of the evidence that Westminster may have a case to answer." Mark Cran QC

Council's own analysis of the case reads: "The High Court was very clear that [it] did not allow the council in setting the charges for parking to take account of extraneous financial matters.
"Westminster therefore cannot increase charges with the motive of generating income, though the generation of income is legitimate if incidental to the setting of charges for other reasons such as traffic restraint."

Mr Segal said: "I find it truly astonishing that Westminster would set down in writing that it knows revenue can only be raised from parking if it is 'incidental'.
"Then cynically, nudge-nudge wink-wink, they come out with a load of extra charges and say it is because of congestion."

Paul Pearson, another parking campaigner, said: "Parking can not be used for revenue generating - and that is exactly what they are doing here. This report proves it."

Charges 'reinvested'
Westminster Council makes more from parking than any other London council and recorded a £35m profit from the account last year.
Referring to the latest proposals, a spokesman said: "These are just options and the council's cabinet will make a final decision in due course.
"This is not about generating profit for the council, which would be illegal, it is about dealing with the increasing pressures on our roads.
"Every single penny of surplus income collected from parking is reinvested straight back into major transport projects."

The spokesman accepted however, the 12 January briefing had been written by the council.