Had a ticket in Ealing ... better read this and tell your friends

Ealing's Councillor Taylor says: "We have to draw the line somewhere ..." May I humbly suggest that he gets permission AND legal advice first. Ealing Council is already in enough trouble drawing lines where they shouldn't!

Ealing Council could be investigated by police for fraud
10:38am Thursday 11th December 2008
Ealing Times
By Alex Hayes

POLICE could be called in to investigate Ealing Council for fraud after it refused to hand out refunds for cash taken on unlawful box junctions.

Cops are investigating a north London borough where 73 tickets were handed out by the local council on one unlawfully marked box junction.

This number is dwarfed by the 59,728 penalties handed out by Ealing Council in the past two years on six junctions which were finally taken up earlier this month, following advice from the Department of Transport (DfT).

Ealing Council has agreed to repay people sent £100 tickets from the junctions in Southall, Hanwell and Ealing Broadway, from June 20, when it was revealed last week the council was told the markings were wrong by the DfT.

However, campaigners are now pushing councillors to refund every penny dished out by drivers since the junctions were put in place in 2004.

Jim Douglas, a campaigner for the Motorists Legal Challenge, an organisation set up to challenge councils over incorrect road markings, said the group was considering calling in police to investigate Ealing Council on grounds of fraud.

He said: "The principles of British law have shown the money is refundable from when it started to be taken unlawfully, and not from when the council was told it was wrong.
"This has been proven in court with banks found guilty of mis-selling policies. They offered to pay back cash from when they discovered products were being mis-sold, but were told to pay back the whole lot.
"We still want the council to admit its mistake and pay back the cash, but until it does this it will have dirty money on its books."

Mr Douglas also said police investigating the other box junction had admitted it was a sensitive area, because of their close working relationship with the local authority.
Ealing Council has spent thousands of pounds putting 50 extra Police Community Support Officers (PCSOs) on the streets, and also works closely with officers in areas such as trading standards and envirocrime.

He continued: "Obviously, this problem could present itself in Ealing as well, and so we want to know whether officers from Ealing would be investigating.
"There is a conflict of interests here, so perhaps it would be better if it was looked at by people from another borough who are independent."

He said the group would be contacting Councillor Phil Taylor, who is in charge of parking, to lay down its position before pursuing the case any further.
Cllr Taylor said the threat would not change the council's stance on the issue.
He told the Ealing Times: "We have to draw the line somewhere, and if we kept going back over history the council would never be able to move forward in anything it does.
"We still believe those junctions were legal, but the DfT weren't happy with them so we took them up."
Anyone interested in joining the campaign for a refund can send an email to: ealing@motoristslegalchallenge.co.uk

What do you think of Ealing Council's position? You can post a comment below or contact Councillor Taylor on his blog here

What's the difference between private and council highway robbery?

The woman on the left was jailed for 'blackmailing' motorists.


What's the difference between her and council officers who are aware that their council have no Traffic Orders in force, or that their signs and lines are illegal or who know they are enforcing illegal paperwork?


Taking money off motorists by purporting to have legal authority to do so ... yet knowing that they haven't whilst at the same time drawing handsome salaries and pensions ... answers please because I am struggling to find the difference.


The continued 'the law doesn't apply to us mentality' from some councils is set to bring the rest into disrepute ... but will eventually see some council officers go the same way as the woman below.


BBC NEWS
Car clamping woman sent to jail

Rebecca Meakin was found guilty last month
A woman who ran a car clamping firm which took thousands of pounds from drivers has been jailed for four years.

Rebecca Meakin, of Millers Vale, Heath Hayes, Staffordshire, was convicted of blackmail by charging motorists up to £300 to retrieve their vehicles.

Her company, Rowencroft Immobilisers, worked at car parks in Cannock and Worcester, Stafford Crown Court heard.

Judge Simon Tonking said regulation of the UK clamping industry was "far from rigorous".

He said: "The boundaries between what is lawful and unlawful are unclear.
"It is a most unsatisfactory state of affairs."

Her co-defendant Cameron Khan was jailed for four-and-a-half years for a number of charges, including conspiracy to blackmail.

Had a parking ticket in Leeds in the last three years?

... then you must watch this.

BBC Look North broke this story exclusively tonight. We had supplied them with papers released under the Freedom of Information Act ... which contained damning revelations about issuing parking tickets illegally, Government Officers even referring to 'fraud or extortion.'

The implications for anyone receiving a ticket and being pursued by a council which does not have legal authority to do so could lead to further criminal complaints and it was considered that the content of the documents was so serious that, in the public interest, a formal complaint had to be made to West Yorkshire Police at 11.30am on Tuesday 22nd April 2008 by Neil Herron.

The BBC Look North programme can be seen here

Anyone who has had a Leeds City Council parking ticket (Penalty Charge Notice) in the last three years please e-mail us at enquiries@parkingappeals.co.uk and we will keep you up to date with developments.

Don't worry if you cannot remember exactly when or where you got it, the important thing is to get in touch as soon as possible.

We intend to pursue matters to ensure that everyone who has been fined unlawfully gets a refund and if there is any more evidence to pass to the Police then we will do so.

2006 Fraud Act ... but only when it suits

The BBC reports today ...

More parents lie to get schools

Competition for places in top schools is intense Local councils in England say increasing numbers of parents have been caught trying to cheat to get places for their children at popular schools.
More ...

What is very interesting is the fact the Local Government Association is quoted as saying that "Parents who use false addresses are breaking the law under the Fraud Act 2006."

But how many councils have lied about aspects of parking enforcement? Rather than considering Misfeasance or Malfeasance in public office perhaps a quicker and cleaner route is a criminal complaint to the Police. After all, what's good enough for the LGA to use against parents, is good enough for motorists to use against councils and their officers.

Now, with a consideration for the local authorities on matters relating to parking enforcement, lets look at the 2006 Fraud Act:

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.

4 Fraud by abuse of position
(1) A person is in breach of this section if he—
(a) occupies a position in which he is expected to safeguard, or not to act against, the financial interests of another person,
(b) dishonestly abuses that position, and
(c) intends, by means of the abuse of that position—
(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 person may be regarded as having abused his position even though his conduct consisted of an omission rather than an act.

Now just consider the activities of some councils (and council officers) in relation to parking enforcement:

• issuing Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs) they knew did not comply with the law.
• continuing to enforce PCNs that they know to be non-compliant
• using paperwork they know to be non-compliant and continuing to enforce, and derive revenue, from such paperwork
• continuing to issue PCNs where signs and lines are unlawful
• how many have cancelled or 'no contested'

What do you think the Local Government Association's take will be on this?

If you want to ask them they can be contacted here