A timely reminder given that the word behind the scenes is that councils are going to up the ante when it comes to parking fine revenue in order to make up any shortfall in their budgets.
A helping legal hand for the motorist
Daily Telegraph
4th April 2010
Philip Johnston argues why it's important to keep fighting when you think you've been unfairly penalised under one of many poorly administered or disproportionate motoring laws.
In Motoring a fortnight ago, David Williams detailed the avalanche of laws bearing down on drivers – from decriminalised parking offences to road pricing and pernickety new requirements like SORNs (statutory off-road notifications). But he could not have imagined in his wildest dreams that it might become illegal to smoke in your own family car.
OK, so far this is just an idea put forward by some very eminent doctors and has few supporters at Westminster. But had you suggested 10 years ago that smoking would be banned in pubs you would have been thought slightly mad, so don't rule it out in the next 10 years.
The aim of this law would be to prevent children being exposed to smoke in confined spaces; but because of the difficulties of seeing if there are kids in the vehicle, all cars would need to be smoke-free zones.
Of course, some privately owned vehicles already are smoke-free under the existing ban. If they are a place of work, such as a taxi or the cab of a lorry which is part of a fleet, then smoking is forbidden.
There may be an argument on safety grounds for banning smoking because it is a distraction from driving; but so is putting on a CD, reaching for a sweet or adjusting the wing mirror. Where do you stop?
It is all a question of proportion – and, as far as the motorist is concerned, the Government has already gone too far – though this is not entirely the fault of Whitehall. Local councils are culpable for the expansion of parking zones into leafy suburbs where they have no purpose other than to raise money.
The 1984 Road Traffic Regulation Act makes it clear that charges must not be levied to raise revenue, but only to make appropriate traffic-management provision. Yet most councils ignore this. According to the Local Government Finance Statistics 2009, councils last year made £1.3 billion from on- and off-street parking, and spent about £820 million on maintaining and enforcing the regime. So the surplus revenue from parking was more than £500 million.
Last year, more than nine million parking tickets were issued – up from 5.7 million in six years.
Parking laws in this country are unjust and often incompetently administered. Yet who speaks up for the harassed, frustrated and angry motorist who feels powerless to do anything about it? Certainly not the political parties because they run the councils that make the money.
There is a coalition of motoring organisations which recently published a Manifesto on the Reform of Parking and Traffic Enforcement calling for the parties to commit to tightening the regulations to ensure that parking charges and penalties are properly and legally applied. This is backed by the London Motorists Action Group (lmag.org.uk), the Drivers Alliance (driversalliance.org.uk) and The Motorists' Legal Challenge Fund (motoristslegal challenge.co.uk)
The decriminalisation of parking, which began in London in 1991 and allowed local authorities to take over parking enforcement, has added to the sense of grievance among those fined for infractions because the penalties are often out of all proportion to the offence and there is no means of pursuing justice through the courts.
But again help is at hand: ParkingAppeals.co.uk specialises in fighting such cases – and winning them, too. Did you know, for instance, that a ticket in a CPZ is invalid unless there are signs indicating a restriction at all entrances to the zone? You would be amazed how many local councils fail to follow the letter of the law, as they must.
For other motoring offences that still fall under the criminal law, like speeding, there is an option to go to court. But who will risk it when the Justice Ministry brings in plans so that defendants who can afford it have to pay their own legal costs? Or why go to the small claims court to fight an unfair clamping by a bunch of roadside cowboys when it can take 18 months to get a hearing?
But it may be worth the hassle – and there are practical guides to negotiating the maze of motoring laws, the best of which is probably (for England and Wales) Fight a Motoring Ticket: How to Claim Against Parking, Speeding and Other Motoring Offences by Jeanette Miller and Jonathan Egan. This is essentially a self-help kit explaining the legal procedures involved and the best way to maximise your chances of success. Certainly, if we all give up at the first hurdle then the tyranny will spread.
If they are going to quote the law at us, we should make sure they are observing it as well. If you are fined simply because your parking ticket has fallen off the windscreen, take time to check that the penalty notice was legally issued, properly worded, accurately dated and does not charge extra for processing credit-card payments. Often the authorities get it wrong. Don't let them play fast and loose with the laws they expect the rest of us to follow.
Philip Johnston is the author of Bad Laws (Constable) £8.99 available from books.telegraph.co.uk.
Showing posts with label neil herron parking appeals. Show all posts
Showing posts with label neil herron parking appeals. Show all posts
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
The pressure mounts ...
Should you wish to support please visit www.motoristslegalchallenge.co.uk
Neil Herron selling car and number plate to fund court battle
Apr 11 2010 by Amy Hunt,
Sunday Sun
A PARKING ticket campaigner is flogging his car and personalised numberplate to raise cash for his High Court fight.
Activist Neil Herron is challenging tickets issued by Sunderland City Council, claiming they were unlawful.
In a case which he says could prove pivotal for drivers, he will argue that hundreds of thousands of parking tickets issued around the UK are unlawful because of flawed regulations.
Having already re-mortgaged his house Mr Herron – who set up his own firm Parking Appeals Ltd – is now putting his own Nissan Navara, which he has had for about three years, up for sale, along with a personalised “F1NED” numberplate.
He hopes to raise £20,000 by flogging the car, which has yellow lines painted down the side in an effort to highlight parking problems. He’ll add the car cash to the £80,000 he says his legal fight has already cost him.
Market trader Mr Herron is due at London’s High Court on May 18 to attempt to get a judicial review into Controlled Parking Zones (CPZs).
He will claim that many tickets are invalid, arguing how the law states every road within a CPZ must be marked with a single or double yellow lines, except where parking spaces are provided.
Any CPZ zone which contains other markings like zig-zags, bus lanes, pelican or zebra crossings would be unlawful, making parking tickets issued in it invalid, he says.
Mr Herron said: “We’re trying to expose that local authorities have a duty to residents, rate-payers and motorists to act fairly and to comply with the law and not to use cost as a weapon to deny people justice or use fines as a way to raise revenue. Many people have paid a parking ticket that they feel is unjust because of the potential cost of appealing it.
“Effectively I have spent £100,000 on a parking ticket. But I’ve had to put my money where my mouth is and if you’re going to stand on a point of principle there’s a degree of sacrifice you have to make.
“I’m hoping there’s a millionaire out there who’s fond of social justice and realises there’s a principle to be fought for. I’m sure there will be someone out there who would pay a lot to see this case succeed.”
Sunderland City Council will contest the case on behalf of all local authorities.
In 2001 Mr Herron was part of the campaign to clear the name of greengrocer and “metric martyr” Steven Thoburn.
Mr Thoburn, who died in 2004, was prosecuted for selling his produce traditionally by the pound at his shop in the area Southwick in Sunderland.
Neil Herron selling car and number plate to fund court battle Apr 11 2010 by Amy Hunt,
Sunday Sun
A PARKING ticket campaigner is flogging his car and personalised numberplate to raise cash for his High Court fight.
Activist Neil Herron is challenging tickets issued by Sunderland City Council, claiming they were unlawful.
In a case which he says could prove pivotal for drivers, he will argue that hundreds of thousands of parking tickets issued around the UK are unlawful because of flawed regulations.
Having already re-mortgaged his house Mr Herron – who set up his own firm Parking Appeals Ltd – is now putting his own Nissan Navara, which he has had for about three years, up for sale, along with a personalised “F1NED” numberplate.
He hopes to raise £20,000 by flogging the car, which has yellow lines painted down the side in an effort to highlight parking problems. He’ll add the car cash to the £80,000 he says his legal fight has already cost him.
Market trader Mr Herron is due at London’s High Court on May 18 to attempt to get a judicial review into Controlled Parking Zones (CPZs).
He will claim that many tickets are invalid, arguing how the law states every road within a CPZ must be marked with a single or double yellow lines, except where parking spaces are provided.
Any CPZ zone which contains other markings like zig-zags, bus lanes, pelican or zebra crossings would be unlawful, making parking tickets issued in it invalid, he says.
Mr Herron said: “We’re trying to expose that local authorities have a duty to residents, rate-payers and motorists to act fairly and to comply with the law and not to use cost as a weapon to deny people justice or use fines as a way to raise revenue. Many people have paid a parking ticket that they feel is unjust because of the potential cost of appealing it.
“Effectively I have spent £100,000 on a parking ticket. But I’ve had to put my money where my mouth is and if you’re going to stand on a point of principle there’s a degree of sacrifice you have to make.
“I’m hoping there’s a millionaire out there who’s fond of social justice and realises there’s a principle to be fought for. I’m sure there will be someone out there who would pay a lot to see this case succeed.”
Sunderland City Council will contest the case on behalf of all local authorities.
In 2001 Mr Herron was part of the campaign to clear the name of greengrocer and “metric martyr” Steven Thoburn.
Mr Thoburn, who died in 2004, was prosecuted for selling his produce traditionally by the pound at his shop in the area Southwick in Sunderland.
Thursday, February 25, 2010
Parking: How Town Hall ‘steals’ motorists’ money
Respect goes to Councillor Knight for being the only elected member of any London Council to turn up to the launch of the Manifesto in the House of Lords. Would have been nice to have seen Councillor Chalkley there to speak on Westminster's behalf.
Camden New Journal
25 February 2010
by RICHARD OSLEY
CAMDEN has been named and shamed as one of the worst areas in the country for unfair parking by campaigners who launched a weighty new manifesto at the House of Lords on Tuesday.
Examples from the borough’s kerbsides litter a thick investigative report which concludes that there needs to be a “root and branch” change to the way parking penalties are dealt with.
The Motorists Legal Challenge Fund group, authors of the report, are asking MPs to consider the issue in the run-up to the general election and have recommended a new independent adjudicator to deal with grievances about tickets and wardens is set up.
None of its members are standing for election but the new group brings together the London Motorists Action Group – of which Hampstead actor Tom Conti is a trustee – and The Drivers’ Alliance as a unified pressure group.
Group secretary Alex Henney said in his experience parking enforcement in Camden in the past had amounted to “stealing” money through fines. One of the main claims of the group is that when local authorities realise they have made an error, they still often quibble over repaying fees.
Mr Henney said the idea of a new adjudicator came about because “there was nowhere else for people to go”.“What are you supposed to do?” said Mr Henney, who lives in Highgate. “We’ve been to appeals. We’ve been to the councillors. We’ve been to court. We’ve been to the police in some cases. We’ve been told we can’t go to a local ombudsmen anymore with our complaints – so the fact is there is nowhere else for us to go apart from expensive judicial reviews – over an £80 parking ticket.”
Other members of the group include Lord Ralph Lucas of Crudwell and Dingwall, who chaired the meeting, and long-term campaigner Neil Herron.
“If local authorities want to make a success of the law enforcement powers they have been granted then they need to earn the respect of the general public very quickly” said Lord Lucas.
The group want more “common sense” on the street, including more discretion for drivers who are just a couple of minutes late back to a meter. Another thrust of the manifesto is the familiar claim that local authorities see penalising “trivial” errors through fines as a way to raise money.
Camden’s unwanted namechecks in the full report include the sudden jump in the cost of builders’ permits from £5 per day to £33 last year and the introduction of a credit card surcharge for payments which is currently being challenged in the courts and could lead to large amounts of refunds.
Driving lessons – ‘We’re getting better’
ENVIRONMENT chief Councillor Chris Knight revealed his own car has been towed away in the past two weeks, costing him more than £250 in penalty fine cash.
But, as he admitted to having clocked up his fair share of parking tickets in the past, Cllr Knight said: “I deserved it. If you are parked in a silly place, wrongly, then you will get a fine.”
Cllr Knight, a Tory, was the only executive member from a local authority to attend Tuesday’s press briefing and to digest the Motorists Challenge Fund report in full.
He said: “I always say that learning is 95 per cent listening and 5 per cent making mistakes. I am prepared to listen to what these guys have to say and try to take onboard any points they have.
If you want to use the analogy: Tony Blair went to talk to the IRA.
It’s been hostile in the past over parking but I have actually listened to what’s been said, some of the things that maybe haven’t worked so well, and we are changing. I think people are seeing that.
“I think people can see it has got fairer and with the new contracts and new training that is coming in, I think there will be even better results in the next year or so.”
In the 2006 local elections, the man then sitting in Cllr Knight’s position was Labour councillor John Thane. In a protest at parking policies, he was singled out in the campaign with leaflets distributed in his Highgate ward urging voters to drive him out of the Town Hall.
Motorists posed in John Thane pirate masks in the months before his eventual defeat. Cllr Knight has yet to face the same venom as parking supremo.
“If you look at what these guys are saying today, they are saying Camden has got better and that I have been more gracious,” he said.
Camden New Journal25 February 2010
by RICHARD OSLEY
CAMDEN has been named and shamed as one of the worst areas in the country for unfair parking by campaigners who launched a weighty new manifesto at the House of Lords on Tuesday.
Examples from the borough’s kerbsides litter a thick investigative report which concludes that there needs to be a “root and branch” change to the way parking penalties are dealt with.
The Motorists Legal Challenge Fund group, authors of the report, are asking MPs to consider the issue in the run-up to the general election and have recommended a new independent adjudicator to deal with grievances about tickets and wardens is set up.
None of its members are standing for election but the new group brings together the London Motorists Action Group – of which Hampstead actor Tom Conti is a trustee – and The Drivers’ Alliance as a unified pressure group.
Group secretary Alex Henney said in his experience parking enforcement in Camden in the past had amounted to “stealing” money through fines. One of the main claims of the group is that when local authorities realise they have made an error, they still often quibble over repaying fees.
Mr Henney said the idea of a new adjudicator came about because “there was nowhere else for people to go”.“What are you supposed to do?” said Mr Henney, who lives in Highgate. “We’ve been to appeals. We’ve been to the councillors. We’ve been to court. We’ve been to the police in some cases. We’ve been told we can’t go to a local ombudsmen anymore with our complaints – so the fact is there is nowhere else for us to go apart from expensive judicial reviews – over an £80 parking ticket.”
Other members of the group include Lord Ralph Lucas of Crudwell and Dingwall, who chaired the meeting, and long-term campaigner Neil Herron.
“If local authorities want to make a success of the law enforcement powers they have been granted then they need to earn the respect of the general public very quickly” said Lord Lucas.
The group want more “common sense” on the street, including more discretion for drivers who are just a couple of minutes late back to a meter. Another thrust of the manifesto is the familiar claim that local authorities see penalising “trivial” errors through fines as a way to raise money.
Camden’s unwanted namechecks in the full report include the sudden jump in the cost of builders’ permits from £5 per day to £33 last year and the introduction of a credit card surcharge for payments which is currently being challenged in the courts and could lead to large amounts of refunds.
Driving lessons – ‘We’re getting better’
ENVIRONMENT chief Councillor Chris Knight revealed his own car has been towed away in the past two weeks, costing him more than £250 in penalty fine cash.
But, as he admitted to having clocked up his fair share of parking tickets in the past, Cllr Knight said: “I deserved it. If you are parked in a silly place, wrongly, then you will get a fine.”
Cllr Knight, a Tory, was the only executive member from a local authority to attend Tuesday’s press briefing and to digest the Motorists Challenge Fund report in full.
He said: “I always say that learning is 95 per cent listening and 5 per cent making mistakes. I am prepared to listen to what these guys have to say and try to take onboard any points they have.
If you want to use the analogy: Tony Blair went to talk to the IRA.
It’s been hostile in the past over parking but I have actually listened to what’s been said, some of the things that maybe haven’t worked so well, and we are changing. I think people are seeing that.
“I think people can see it has got fairer and with the new contracts and new training that is coming in, I think there will be even better results in the next year or so.”
In the 2006 local elections, the man then sitting in Cllr Knight’s position was Labour councillor John Thane. In a protest at parking policies, he was singled out in the campaign with leaflets distributed in his Highgate ward urging voters to drive him out of the Town Hall.
Motorists posed in John Thane pirate masks in the months before his eventual defeat. Cllr Knight has yet to face the same venom as parking supremo.
“If you look at what these guys are saying today, they are saying Camden has got better and that I have been more gracious,” he said.
Saturday, January 09, 2010
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 ...
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 ...
Monday, October 26, 2009
Christmas comes early in St. Alban's ...
Santa Claus delivers Credit Crunch Christmas BonusAs many across the country continue to suffer from aggressive stealth tax parking enforcement by many local authorities Christmas has come early for one city's motorists.
A recent decision by a Traffic Penalty Tribunal adjudicator has ruled the City and District of St. Alban's (Off Street Parking Places) Order 2008 INVALID.
This decision has far reaching implications because it follows similar drafting of previous orders and the 2009 Order follows the 2008 and all make reference to 'driver liability.'
Under Civil (formerly Decriminalised) Parking Enforcement it is the owner (or Registered Keeper) who is liable for the Penalty Charge NOT the driver. This fact is pretty fundamental and it is either crass incompetence, intransigence or arrogance that this council has not seen fit to get their own legal house in order since DPE powers were granted on 1st October 2004.
A full copy of the decision is shown below. The implications for the local authority are:
- enforcement in ALL the off-street car parks must be suspended immediately.
- ALL monies derived from PCNs MUST be refunded.
- ALL monies derived from permits MUST be refunded.
- ALL pay and display revenue MUST be refunded or given to charity.
- There must be a full, external investigation to ensure that no-one else is exposed to the risk of a loss from invalid legal instruments drafted by the council officers and that includes all aspects of the operation of the parking regime.
However, there are even more serious implications because the council informed the Department for Transport in advance of being granted DPE powers that this (checking of the lines, signs and TROs) had been done. Heads will have to roll and questions will have to be asked of the highly paid officials.
The letter to the Chief Executive to cease enforcement will be on his desk first thing in the morning. Meanwhile, anyone with a PCN drop us a line at enquiries@parkingappeals.co.uk
A list of the PCN numbers in the 'hotspot' car parks is shown below along with a full list of all off street car parks.
The adjudicator also ruled the PCN non-compliant so that has the potential to impact on all on-street PCNs as well.
‘Popular’ Car Parks in 2007 –PCNs issued
• Adelaid Street 113
• Amenbury Lane 713
• Batchwood Hall 298
• Bowers Way East (Harpenden) 566.
• Bowers Way West (Harpenden) 1047
• Bricket Road 771
• Civic Centre 1540
• Drovers Way 182
• Gombards 775
• Verulamium 598
• Westminster Lodge 1777
• Bowers Way East (Harpenden) 566
• Bowers Way West (Harpenden) 1047
NOTE: These are just ‘popular hotspots for issuing PCNs,
9993 PCNs from just these in 2007
How many in 2008 and how may this year ?
How many since October 2004 ?
WESTMINSTER LODGE CAR PARKS, ST ALBANS
LYDEKKER CAR PARK HARPENDEN
BATCHWOOD HALL CAR PARKS
CHURCHEND CAR PARK SANDRIDGE
CRAVELLS ROAD CAR PARK HARPENDEN
EAST LANE CAR PARK WHEATHAMPSTEAD
HASELDINE ROAD CAR PARK LONDON COLNEY
HIGH STREET CAR PARK (VILLAGE HALL) REDBOURN
MARQUIS LANE CAR PARK HARPENDEN
NOMANSLAND COMMON CAR PARK WHEATHAMPSTEAD
PARK STREET CAR PARK (opposite ‘Swan’ Public House)
THE RIDGEWAY(Library) CAR PARK ST ALBANS
SOUTHVIEW ROAD CAR PARK HARPENDEN
ADELAIDE STREET CAR PARK ST ALBANS
AMENBURY LANE CAR PARK HARPENDEN
BOWERS WAY EAST CAR PARK HARPENDEN
BOWERS WAY WEST CAR PARK HARPENDEN
CLARENCE PARK CAR PARK ST ALBANS
BRICKET ROAD NORTH cAR PARK ST ALBANS
CIVIC CENTRE THREE LEVEL CAR PARK ST ALBANS
ST ALBANS CITY CENTRE MSCP DROVERS WAY
GOMBARDS CAR PARK ST ALBANS
LONDON ROAD CAR PARKS ST ALBANS
ST ALBANS CITYCENTRE MSCP
RUSSELL AVENUE SECTION ST ALBANS
TOWNSEND AVENUE CAR PARK ST ALBANS
VERULAMIUM CAR PARK ST ALBANS
Friday, September 25, 2009
Motorists could be in line for parking fine refund
Herald Express
21 September 2009
MOTORISTS in Teignbridge who have received parking tickets could be eligible for a refund after a surcharge on payment by credit card was deemed illegal.
Penalty Charge Notices that were being issued by Teignbridge District Council stated that the recipient would incur a 1.7 per cent administration charge if it was paid by credit card.
However, this meant the penalty exceeded the amount prescribed by law and rendered the notices unlawful.
Dawlish resident and long-time parking campaigner Peter Harry fell victim to the extra charges and brought it to the attention of Neil Herron, who runs a business called Parking Appeals.
Following the revelation, a spokesman for Teignbridge Council said it had stopped making the charge on August 13 this year, 'as soon as we were made aware of a decision relating to another authority's charges'.
He said: "The small credit card surcharge on penalty charge notices was applied in good faith, and in common with many authorities and businesses."
A freedom of information request asking when the surcharge was introduced, the total number of penalty notices issued and the income derived from them, has now been submitted to the district council.
Mr Herron has encouraged everyone who has been issued with a ticket since the surcharge was introduced to apply for a refund.
He said: "Councils are not permitted to charge a surcharge for parking fines and if they do then the motorist is entitled to his money back.
"This is the first case we are aware of in Devon but four boroughs in London we took to task, issued £19.4m worth of parking tickets this way over a period extending from six months to two years.
"All monies must be refunded where the charge was applied whether the recipient paid by credit card or not, as it is the PCN that is unlawful."
Mr Harry claimed that the tickets being issued by Teignbridge District Council at present were still invalid.
He said: "I purposely got another ticket after they said it had been withdrawn and all the council appear to have is use a black felt tip pen to cross off the information about the surcharge on the notice.
"It is a legal document and they can not just tamper with it. If you are named on a will you can not cross someone's name out with a black pen. Until they issue a new stock, all penalty charge notices that are given out will continue to be unlawful."
21 September 2009
MOTORISTS in Teignbridge who have received parking tickets could be eligible for a refund after a surcharge on payment by credit card was deemed illegal.
Penalty Charge Notices that were being issued by Teignbridge District Council stated that the recipient would incur a 1.7 per cent administration charge if it was paid by credit card.
However, this meant the penalty exceeded the amount prescribed by law and rendered the notices unlawful.
Dawlish resident and long-time parking campaigner Peter Harry fell victim to the extra charges and brought it to the attention of Neil Herron, who runs a business called Parking Appeals.
Following the revelation, a spokesman for Teignbridge Council said it had stopped making the charge on August 13 this year, 'as soon as we were made aware of a decision relating to another authority's charges'.
He said: "The small credit card surcharge on penalty charge notices was applied in good faith, and in common with many authorities and businesses."
A freedom of information request asking when the surcharge was introduced, the total number of penalty notices issued and the income derived from them, has now been submitted to the district council.
Mr Herron has encouraged everyone who has been issued with a ticket since the surcharge was introduced to apply for a refund.
He said: "Councils are not permitted to charge a surcharge for parking fines and if they do then the motorist is entitled to his money back.
"This is the first case we are aware of in Devon but four boroughs in London we took to task, issued £19.4m worth of parking tickets this way over a period extending from six months to two years.
"All monies must be refunded where the charge was applied whether the recipient paid by credit card or not, as it is the PCN that is unlawful."
Mr Harry claimed that the tickets being issued by Teignbridge District Council at present were still invalid.
He said: "I purposely got another ticket after they said it had been withdrawn and all the council appear to have is use a black felt tip pen to cross off the information about the surcharge on the notice.
"It is a legal document and they can not just tamper with it. If you are named on a will you can not cross someone's name out with a black pen. Until they issue a new stock, all penalty charge notices that are given out will continue to be unlawful."
Saturday, August 22, 2009
Credit-card surcharges for parking tickets to be reimbursed
Town halls across Britain are bracing themselves for an inundation of claims by motorists demanding reimbursement of money they were wrongfully charged for paying for a parking ticket by credit card.
[ClickPress, Thu Aug 13 2009]
In a test case in which a London motorist challenged the 1.3% surcharge in Camden, his claim was upheld by the adjudicator (the Parking and Traffic Appeals Service), which said that such surcharges are unlawful and councils could not demand money in addition to the fine for the offence itself.
This ruling applies to all fines set by local authorities, including those outside London which have been given the right to monitor parking offences and keep the fines. This ruling opens the way for millions of drivers who have used a credit card for paying a parking fine to claim reimbursement.
If councils choose not to issue refunds to all those entitled to one, they may face a class action launched by the motorists’ campaign group Parking Appeals.
Neil Herron, a spokesman for the group, said that the surcharges were simply a case of greed on the part of councils “trying to extract every last drop of cash from the motorist”.
A spokesman for the AA also attacked the credit card charges, calling them “outrageous” and a demonstration of “the extent to which councils have been acting as a law unto themselves”.
Peter Roberts, chief executive of the Drivers’ Alliance, welcomed the ruling on the test case. “Councils are taking motorists for a ride with countless stealth taxes and petty fines,” he said, and called on “every council [to] return the illegal charges without delay”.
A government spokesman from the Department of Transport added his voice too to the chorus of critics, saying that “Parking charges should be used to manage demand and not to raise revenue.”
What makes the charges all the more indefensible is that paying parking fines by debit and credit cards is actually much cheaper and more secure for local authorities than processing cheques or dealing with cash brought into a parking shop.
Following the ruling, Camden Council has scrapped its policy of levying an extra fee for processing payments made by credit card, a “goodwill move” which it is applying across all council services, not just on parking fines. It said that processing bills through credit cards was costing the authority some £250,000 a year, costs which the charge was intended to cover.
For press enquiries, please contact Peter Cooper on 020 7183 7247
Email: info@247parking.com Web: http://www.247parking.com/
News provided by 24 7 Parking Ltd, a leading marketing services provider to the car parking industry in the UK, and a leading de facto marketplace for buyers and sellers, or lessees and lessors, of car parking spaces. 24 7 Parking carries out daily surveys of the national media to provide up-to-date news and commentary on UK transport.
[ClickPress, Thu Aug 13 2009]
In a test case in which a London motorist challenged the 1.3% surcharge in Camden, his claim was upheld by the adjudicator (the Parking and Traffic Appeals Service), which said that such surcharges are unlawful and councils could not demand money in addition to the fine for the offence itself.
This ruling applies to all fines set by local authorities, including those outside London which have been given the right to monitor parking offences and keep the fines. This ruling opens the way for millions of drivers who have used a credit card for paying a parking fine to claim reimbursement.
If councils choose not to issue refunds to all those entitled to one, they may face a class action launched by the motorists’ campaign group Parking Appeals.
Neil Herron, a spokesman for the group, said that the surcharges were simply a case of greed on the part of councils “trying to extract every last drop of cash from the motorist”.
A spokesman for the AA also attacked the credit card charges, calling them “outrageous” and a demonstration of “the extent to which councils have been acting as a law unto themselves”.
Peter Roberts, chief executive of the Drivers’ Alliance, welcomed the ruling on the test case. “Councils are taking motorists for a ride with countless stealth taxes and petty fines,” he said, and called on “every council [to] return the illegal charges without delay”.
A government spokesman from the Department of Transport added his voice too to the chorus of critics, saying that “Parking charges should be used to manage demand and not to raise revenue.”
What makes the charges all the more indefensible is that paying parking fines by debit and credit cards is actually much cheaper and more secure for local authorities than processing cheques or dealing with cash brought into a parking shop.
Following the ruling, Camden Council has scrapped its policy of levying an extra fee for processing payments made by credit card, a “goodwill move” which it is applying across all council services, not just on parking fines. It said that processing bills through credit cards was costing the authority some £250,000 a year, costs which the charge was intended to cover.
For press enquiries, please contact Peter Cooper on 020 7183 7247
Email: info@247parking.com Web: http://www.247parking.com/
News provided by 24 7 Parking Ltd, a leading marketing services provider to the car parking industry in the UK, and a leading de facto marketplace for buyers and sellers, or lessees and lessors, of car parking spaces. 24 7 Parking carries out daily surveys of the national media to provide up-to-date news and commentary on UK transport.
Sunday, August 09, 2009
Another victory as Camden caves in ... but beware the smokescreen
Please try and keep a straight face when you read that Camden had decided to refund credit card surcharges across all council services "as a goodwill move."
Is it the fear of litigation that has brought about this change of heart?
Harrow, Merton and Kingston are set to follow suit.
Council to repay credit card levy
BBC 9th August 2009
Camden Council in London has scrapped a policy only introduced in January of levying an extra fee to taxpayers for processing money paid by credit card.
The move follows a ruling by an appeals body that applying a card surcharge made an entire parking fine unlawful.
The council said it was still looking at that ruling but meanwhile was abandoning the handling fee across all council services as a "goodwill move".
Parking fee lobby group Parking Appeals said the move was a "smokescreen".
The council said processing bills through credit cards was costing the authority about £250,000 a year and the charge had been introduced to recover those costs.
"This fee has now been suspended across all council services, and those people who have paid a credit card charge may apply for a refund," the council said.
'Legal action'
The council has given out £26m in parking fines this year and stopped levying the credit card handling fee after the ruling by the Parking and Traffic Appeals Service.
The authority says it is still considering what to do about that decision but has meanwhile stopped levying the credit card charge across all its services, not just on parking fines.
Neil Herron, from pressure group Parking Appeals, claimed the move was a "smokescreen to cover their actions".
"I hope the council do not think that by refunding the credit card surcharge across all its council services they will avoid repaying the entire parking fines to the thousands of motorists who have been unlawfully penalised," he said.
"The entire fines have been ruled unlawful, not just the surcharges for paying by credit card.
"If they do not abide by the appeal tribunal ruling, we will not hesitate to take legal action."
A council spokesman said the authority was expected to decide within a fortnight what action to take following the appeal panel's decision, which was handed down in June.
The ruling could also affect many other boroughs, including Harrow, Merton and Kingston, which had also charged extra to pay tickets by credit card.
Is it the fear of litigation that has brought about this change of heart?
Harrow, Merton and Kingston are set to follow suit.
Perhaps councils will start to understand that they too must respect the law. After years of fining motorists for the most minor of contraventions and using parking enforcement as a stealth tax it now seems that those days are not only numbered but likely to come with a very heavy price indeed.
We will shortly be revealing which councils outside of London are set for a nasty shock as they too fall foul of just wanting a little too much blood.
If you have had a ticket and want to be kept updated then drop us an e-mail at enquiries@parkingappeals.co.uk and title it refunds. You can support what we do at www.parkingappeals.co.uk or www.motoristslegalchallenge.co.uk
Council to repay credit card levyBBC 9th August 2009
Camden Council in London has scrapped a policy only introduced in January of levying an extra fee to taxpayers for processing money paid by credit card.
The move follows a ruling by an appeals body that applying a card surcharge made an entire parking fine unlawful.
The council said it was still looking at that ruling but meanwhile was abandoning the handling fee across all council services as a "goodwill move".
Parking fee lobby group Parking Appeals said the move was a "smokescreen".
The council said processing bills through credit cards was costing the authority about £250,000 a year and the charge had been introduced to recover those costs.
"This fee has now been suspended across all council services, and those people who have paid a credit card charge may apply for a refund," the council said.
'Legal action'
The council has given out £26m in parking fines this year and stopped levying the credit card handling fee after the ruling by the Parking and Traffic Appeals Service.
The authority says it is still considering what to do about that decision but has meanwhile stopped levying the credit card charge across all its services, not just on parking fines.
Neil Herron, from pressure group Parking Appeals, claimed the move was a "smokescreen to cover their actions".
"I hope the council do not think that by refunding the credit card surcharge across all its council services they will avoid repaying the entire parking fines to the thousands of motorists who have been unlawfully penalised," he said.
"The entire fines have been ruled unlawful, not just the surcharges for paying by credit card.
"If they do not abide by the appeal tribunal ruling, we will not hesitate to take legal action."
A council spokesman said the authority was expected to decide within a fortnight what action to take following the appeal panel's decision, which was handed down in June.
The ruling could also affect many other boroughs, including Harrow, Merton and Kingston, which had also charged extra to pay tickets by credit card.
Saturday, June 27, 2009
This why signing MUST comply with the law ... the clock is ticking
When it comes to signing law nearly is not good enough. Stephen Sauvain QC representing Sunderland recently stated in the High Court in relation to another signing issue, that 'no-one could be misled by the meaning of a restriction.'
Adjudicators have also repeatedly chanted the mantra that 'it looks like a road sign or a bay and it is clear in its meaning therefore no-one could have been misled as to its intent.'
If we look at the series of photographs (left and below) it shows a loading bay and also zig-zags. Applying the philosophy and argument from those described above one would think that it is okay to park where indicated for the purposes of loading. No-one could be misled.
However, the zig-zag restriction runs from middle of the road to the building line meaning that motorists are being actively encouraged to park on the zig-zags and in doing so obstruct the field of vision for pedestrian and motorist alike. Now who is being misled?
The Department for Transport have confirmed that this is not allowed (not to mention the fact that the Loading Only bay is also incorrectly marked).
We have signing law for a reason ... and must it take a serious accident or fatality before Sunderland City Council officers reckless indifference to their legal responsibilities strikes home? This is the tip of the iceberg in Sunderland but perhaps the most serious example of their disregard for the law and failure to act.
The Department for Transport despite repeated requests have been indifferent to say the least. Ward councillors and the Leader of the Council have been put on notice as has local MPs Bill Etherington and Chris Mullin.The photograph on the left shows a near miss and many more incidents involving pedestrians and motorists occur on a regular basis.
Minister reads plea for safety
Sunderland Echo
Published Date: 25 June 2009
By James Johnston
A parking campaigner has written to new Transport Secretary Lord Adonis in a bid to boost safety on a Sunderland road.
Neil Herron took the step after he learnt of a series of near misses in Sea Road, Fulwell, in recent months. The businessman, of The Westlands, said it was a matter of time before there was a fatality there. Children regularly using a crossing are hidden by vehicles parked in loading bays behind zig-zag lines, he said, and the vision of both pedestrians and the drivers can be severely restricted.
In the letter to the Department for Transport (DfT), Mr Herron writes: "A situation exists where non-prescribed loading bays have been placed behind the zig-zags."It is something which continues to cause real concern and, despite raising the matter repeatedly with the highway authority, it is still being ignored."Requests have also been made to the Department for Transport for their intervention before someone is killed at this location, but those requests also seem to be treated with indifference, despite the DfT having powers to intervene."
Adjudicators have also repeatedly chanted the mantra that 'it looks like a road sign or a bay and it is clear in its meaning therefore no-one could have been misled as to its intent.'If we look at the series of photographs (left and below) it shows a loading bay and also zig-zags. Applying the philosophy and argument from those described above one would think that it is okay to park where indicated for the purposes of loading. No-one could be misled.
However, the zig-zag restriction runs from middle of the road to the building line meaning that motorists are being actively encouraged to park on the zig-zags and in doing so obstruct the field of vision for pedestrian and motorist alike. Now who is being misled?
The Department for Transport have confirmed that this is not allowed (not to mention the fact that the Loading Only bay is also incorrectly marked).We have signing law for a reason ... and must it take a serious accident or fatality before Sunderland City Council officers reckless indifference to their legal responsibilities strikes home? This is the tip of the iceberg in Sunderland but perhaps the most serious example of their disregard for the law and failure to act.
The Department for Transport despite repeated requests have been indifferent to say the least. Ward councillors and the Leader of the Council have been put on notice as has local MPs Bill Etherington and Chris Mullin.However, Lord Adonis now has the matter sitting on his desk and the Sunderland Echo have made the issue very public indeed.
Let us hope that nothing serious happens as the clock ticks ...
A copy of the letter is shown below the article.
Minister reads plea for safety
Sunderland Echo
Published Date: 25 June 2009
By James Johnston
A parking campaigner has written to new Transport Secretary Lord Adonis in a bid to boost safety on a Sunderland road.
Neil Herron took the step after he learnt of a series of near misses in Sea Road, Fulwell, in recent months. The businessman, of The Westlands, said it was a matter of time before there was a fatality there. Children regularly using a crossing are hidden by vehicles parked in loading bays behind zig-zag lines, he said, and the vision of both pedestrians and the drivers can be severely restricted.
In the letter to the Department for Transport (DfT), Mr Herron writes: "A situation exists where non-prescribed loading bays have been placed behind the zig-zags."It is something which continues to cause real concern and, despite raising the matter repeatedly with the highway authority, it is still being ignored."Requests have also been made to the Department for Transport for their intervention before someone is killed at this location, but those requests also seem to be treated with indifference, despite the DfT having powers to intervene."
Mr Herron is also fighting a personal battle against a number of parking fines. He runs Boldon-based Parking Appeals Ltd, a company which helps those who feel they have been on the wrong end of a parking attendant's decision.
In the letter to former rail minister Lord Adonis, who was promoted to Transport Secretary earlier this month, Mr Herron added: "I wish to place the Sea Road matter openly on the record with you personally in your position as the Secretary of State for Transport, in order to rectify the situation as a matter of urgency."
Mr Herron says he is due to hold a meeting with the DfT to discuss the issue.
THE LETTER TO LORD ADONIS
Lord Adonis Secretary of State for Transport
House of LordsLondonSW1A 0PW
22nd June 2009
Lord Adonis Secretary of State for Transport
House of LordsLondonSW1A 0PW
22nd June 2009
Subject: URGENT ... Safety Hazard at Sea Road, Sunderland
Dear Lord Adonis,
A situation exists at the above location where non-prescribed Loading Bays have been placed behind the zig-zags. It is something which continues to cause real concern, and, despite raising the matter repeatedly with the Highway Authority (Sunderland City Council) it is still being ignored. Requests have also been made to the Department for Transport for their intervention before someone is killed at this location but those requests also seem to be treated with indifference, despite the DfT having powers to intervene. John Munns at the Department for Transport has however confirmed that there has been no authorisation for the use of the road markings and plates at this restriction (see attached).
Therefore, I wish to place the matter openly on the record with you personally in your position as the Secretary of State for Transport, in order to rectify the situation as a matter of urgency, and wish for the Highway Authority (SCC) to be informed without delay that the restriction is unlawful and that it must be removed from the highway forthwith.The restriction at this location is not prescribed in law and it has been confirmed that it has not been authorised by the Secretary of State. Therefore, I wish to draw to your attention the following (my emphasis):
Chapter 1 Traffic Signs Manual - Use of Non-prescribed ‘Illegal’ signs.Part 3. Legal Aspects and Responsibilities for Signs1.18 The use on Public highways of non-prescribed signs which have not been authorised by, or on behalf of, the Secretary of State, is illegal and Authorities who so use unauthorised signs act beyond their powers. Additionally, an unauthorised sign in the highway is an obstruction. The possible consequences of erecting or permitting the erection of obstructions may be severe and those responsible could lay themselves open to a claim for damages……
Dear Lord Adonis,
A situation exists at the above location where non-prescribed Loading Bays have been placed behind the zig-zags. It is something which continues to cause real concern, and, despite raising the matter repeatedly with the Highway Authority (Sunderland City Council) it is still being ignored. Requests have also been made to the Department for Transport for their intervention before someone is killed at this location but those requests also seem to be treated with indifference, despite the DfT having powers to intervene. John Munns at the Department for Transport has however confirmed that there has been no authorisation for the use of the road markings and plates at this restriction (see attached).
Therefore, I wish to place the matter openly on the record with you personally in your position as the Secretary of State for Transport, in order to rectify the situation as a matter of urgency, and wish for the Highway Authority (SCC) to be informed without delay that the restriction is unlawful and that it must be removed from the highway forthwith.The restriction at this location is not prescribed in law and it has been confirmed that it has not been authorised by the Secretary of State. Therefore, I wish to draw to your attention the following (my emphasis):
Chapter 1 Traffic Signs Manual - Use of Non-prescribed ‘Illegal’ signs.Part 3. Legal Aspects and Responsibilities for Signs1.18 The use on Public highways of non-prescribed signs which have not been authorised by, or on behalf of, the Secretary of State, is illegal and Authorities who so use unauthorised signs act beyond their powers. Additionally, an unauthorised sign in the highway is an obstruction. The possible consequences of erecting or permitting the erection of obstructions may be severe and those responsible could lay themselves open to a claim for damages……
1.20 Authorities should consider requiring the removal of any object or device erected privately on land adjacent to their roads which has the apparent or express intention of guiding, warning or directing road users. In addition, private advertisements should not resemble or incorporate prescribed traffic signs on their symbols. United Kingdom signs are crown copyright and may not be reproduced without permission. In no circumstances will the Department permit the use of traffic signs on advertisements at roadside locations. When prescribed traffic signs are used illegally action should be taken to secure their removal.
I am aware of a number of near misses and it is only a matter of time before there is a fatality at this unlawfully signed location. The frustration is that certain officers at Sunderland City Council appear to think that signing law does not apply to them and this cavalier attitude and reckless indifference to their legal duties applies to other areas in the City, but it can be seen from Chapter 1 of the Traffic Signs Manual Part 3 1.18 that not only are they acting unlawfully they are doing so in the full knowledge that their actions are unlawful.
Meanwhile, school children regularly using this crossing are hidden by vehicles parked in loading bays behind the zig-zags. Both the pedestrians and the drivers view can be obstructed by vehicles ‘encouraged’ to park behind zig-zags.
I would appreciate your intervention and have copied this in to the press and media to make the public fully aware before someone is killed at this unlawfully marked location. I am sure that you will be aware that under The Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007 if a person to whom a duty of care is owed (member of the public who relies on Council Officers and the Highway Authority to ensure that restrictions placed on the highway are lawful) is killed then that death could be seen to be due to management failures which amount to a gross breach of the “relevant duty of care”. I wish for you, as the Secretary of State to be fully aware of Sunderland’s repeated avoidance of my requests and refusal to act and therefore fully responsible for any consequences of that failure to act, and that responsibility also resides with you as the Secretary of State.
I have also copied in senior executives at the City Council in order for them to be fully aware of the potential corporate and personal consequences for failing to act, as well as various elected representatives both locally and nationally.
I will make available all communications on this matter on request should you require them.
I look forward to your response.
Yours sincerely,
Neil Herron
Tel. 0191 5195932
I am aware of a number of near misses and it is only a matter of time before there is a fatality at this unlawfully signed location. The frustration is that certain officers at Sunderland City Council appear to think that signing law does not apply to them and this cavalier attitude and reckless indifference to their legal duties applies to other areas in the City, but it can be seen from Chapter 1 of the Traffic Signs Manual Part 3 1.18 that not only are they acting unlawfully they are doing so in the full knowledge that their actions are unlawful.
Meanwhile, school children regularly using this crossing are hidden by vehicles parked in loading bays behind the zig-zags. Both the pedestrians and the drivers view can be obstructed by vehicles ‘encouraged’ to park behind zig-zags.
I would appreciate your intervention and have copied this in to the press and media to make the public fully aware before someone is killed at this unlawfully marked location. I am sure that you will be aware that under The Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007 if a person to whom a duty of care is owed (member of the public who relies on Council Officers and the Highway Authority to ensure that restrictions placed on the highway are lawful) is killed then that death could be seen to be due to management failures which amount to a gross breach of the “relevant duty of care”. I wish for you, as the Secretary of State to be fully aware of Sunderland’s repeated avoidance of my requests and refusal to act and therefore fully responsible for any consequences of that failure to act, and that responsibility also resides with you as the Secretary of State.
I have also copied in senior executives at the City Council in order for them to be fully aware of the potential corporate and personal consequences for failing to act, as well as various elected representatives both locally and nationally.
I will make available all communications on this matter on request should you require them.
I look forward to your response.
Yours sincerely,
Neil Herron
Tel. 0191 5195932
Mob. 07776202045
cc. Chris Mullin MPcc. Bill Etherington MP
cc. Chris Mullin MPcc. Bill Etherington MP
cc. Lord Lucas
cc. Dave Smith, Chief Executive, Sunderland City Council
cc. Dave Smith, Chief Executive, Sunderland City Council
cc. Councillor Paul Watson, Leader
cc. Councillor Colin Wakefield
cc. Councillor Colin Wakefield
cc. Councillor George Howe
cc. Councillor Bob Francis
cc. Councillor John Walton
cc. Earl Belshaw, Parking Services
cc. Burney Johnson, Head of Transport and Engineering.
cc. Councillor Bob Francis
cc. Councillor John Walton
cc. Earl Belshaw, Parking Services
cc. Burney Johnson, Head of Transport and Engineering.
cc. Phil Barrett, Director of Development and Regeneration
cc. Richard Bentley RMB Consulting
cc. John Munns, Graham Hanson Department for Transport
cc. Oliver Mishcon, barrister
cc. James Johnston, Peter Jeffrey, Ross Robertson, Sunderland Echo
cc. Richard Bentley RMB Consulting
cc. John Munns, Graham Hanson Department for Transport
cc. Oliver Mishcon, barrister
cc. James Johnston, Peter Jeffrey, Ross Robertson, Sunderland Echo
cc. Sara Nichol, Newcastle Journal
cc. Tony Kearney, Northern Echo
cc. BBC North East News
cc. Tony Kearney, Northern Echo
cc. BBC North East News
Monday, June 22, 2009
Chideock Speed Camera Refunds
For all those who think that you are not entitled to refunds when a Traffic Order is defective read the press release below ...Meanwhile, just a reminder to all those councils who regularly read this blog ... Regulation 18 Local Authority Traffic Order Procedures ... if your signs are not correct then your traffic order is not in force. All monies derived from unlawfully marked locations will have to be refunded. The Chideock case wipes out the myth that is chanted regularly by Council press officers and Nick Lester of London Councils ... 'that if you paid the ticket you accepted the contravention.'
WRONG ... and more and more motorists are ready to start legal actions for restitution.
Chideock Speed Camera Partnership Update
Chideock Update - 19th June 2009
****PRESS RELEASE****
Technicality in the Traffic Regulation Order Relating
to the A35 in Chideock, West Dorset
This announcement follows the case of Regina v Dawe (see ‘Notes to Editors’ for details) and the Crown Court judgment that the Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) relating to the village of Chideock in West Dorset was defective due to a historical clerical error in the street name in the TRO.
The Dorset Safety Camera Partnership (DSCP) can confirm that it has secured agreement regarding dealing with speeding offences detected by the safety camera monitoring westbound traffic on the A35 in Chideock prior to 2007.
Each case will be reviewed individually and may result in motorists detected travelling over 30mph on the westbound safety camera in Chideock, prior to 2007, having the fixed penalty payment from this offence refunded and the related penalty points removed from their driving licence, if still valid.
Adrian Whiting, Assistant Chief Constable for Dorset Police and the Chair of the Dorset Strategic Road Safety Partnership, comments:
"Chideock is a small rural community with a main road running through the middle of the village and we are reassured that no one has tried to suggest that the speed limit should be anything other than 30mph.
"During the period this safety camera has been in operation it will have reduced drivers’ speeds through the village by acting as a deterrent, which will have helped to safeguard the safety of the people who live in Chideock and other road users. The public should be reassured by the fact that a new TRO is in place and the DSCP has recommenced enforcement there."
The DSCP will be writing to all drivers affected, to inform them of the situation and outline the process to follow if they wish to have their fixed penalty refunded and the related penalty points removed from their driving licence if still valid. Details of the process to follow if drivers think their offence is affected are available on the DSCP website – http://www.dorsetsafetycameras.org.uk/
The Dorset Safety Camera Partnership remains focused on working together to reduce the number of people who are killed or seriously injured on Dorset’s roads as a consequence of both excess and inappropriate speed.
Media Enquiries - please contact Nikki Haine or Matt McKenna on 01425 472330 or email
emily@mckennatownsendpr.com
NOTES TO EDITORS
Background information on the issues relating to the A35 westbound in Chideock and the Crown Court case of Regina v Dawe:
1. In 1997 a Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) relating to the village of Chideock, West Dorset was arranged. The order defined a length of the A35 westbound as subject to a 30mph speed limit. This was necessary as that stretch of road does not have a system of street lighting.
2. The text of the order referred to the A35 junction with "Seatown Road". This was a mistake as the road was then, and still is, correctly named "Duck Street".
3. At approximately 23:15hrs on the 27th October 2005 Mr Dawe was detected speeding by a fixed safety camera, travelling west in the village of Chideock. He was travelling at 41mph in a lorry, passing the houses where the safety camera is located and approaching the village Pubs. He has never disputed this speed, nor suggested it was sensible to drive that fast in the built-up area of the village.
4. He appealed his conviction on the grounds that the 30mph speed limit signs were not of the proper form. On the 26th October 2007 the Crown Court sitting at Dorchester found that the TRO was defective due to the road name issue, and thus the 30mph speed limit could not be enforced at that point on the A35 westbound. Accordingly the Court did not need to assess Mr Dawe’s actual grounds for appeal, and no finding on them was made.
5. Following the Crown Court judgement the organisations which make up the Dorset Safety Camera Partnership have been working with the appropriate Government departments to determine whether this judgement applies to other cases and agree an appropriate process for dealing with these offences.
The Dorset Safety Camera Partnership
The Dorset Safety Camera Partnership, which was set up in August 2002, constitutes a partnership between Dorset County Council, Borough of Poole Council, Bournemouth Borough Council, Dorset Police, NHS South West, Highways Agency, Her Majesty’s Courts Service and the Crown Prosecution Service.
The Partnership, through a combination of measures including education, engineering and enforcement, is working together to reduce the number of people who are killed or seriously injured on Dorset’s roads, as a consequence of both excess and inappropriate speed. It is responsible for the operation and maintenance of fixed site, mobile and red-light junction cameras throughout Dorset.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Should a yellow line have a t-bar? Is the adjudication service independent?
Parking adjudicators will have you believe that the law doesn't concern itself with trifles BUT it isn't a trifle when you get walloped for a £120 fine.However, there is a High Court case pending which could re-establish the rule of law and ensure that local authorities comply with the law. Adjudicators (funded by the local authorities who have repeatedly failed to comply with the law ... the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002) have seized on the phrase 'substantial compliance' with the interpretation that if a sign 'looks' like a sign (or line) then 'no reasonable motorist' could have been misled.
That is not how the law is written. TSRGD 2002 is explicit and sets out the dimensions (and permitted variants) for road traffic signs. Any deviations from prescribed signage requires Special Authorisation from the Secretary of State.
Don't take my word for it ...
Here is the British Parking Association's submission to the House of Commons Transport Committee:
TRAFFIC SIGNS
30. Traffic and parking regulations are given effect by traffic signs and markings. In the UK signs are prescribed precisely in Traffic Signs Regulations and General Direction TSRGD (SI 2002/3113) and if a sign or marking does not comply with TSRGD then the regulation has no effect. We believe that it is important that, particularly for parking, where drivers are expected to comply with regulations, that the precision of signing is preserved and enforced. Where a driver is at risk of a financial penalty, or worse, signs cannot be "about right".
Not convinced?
Check out the statement of the DETR (now the Department for Transport) in relation to the requirement to have t-bars terminating double and single yellow lines reported by the BBC here:
One of the main problems, he claims, is when double yellow lines are painted without a T-bar finishing off the lines at each end.
The Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (DTLR) confirmed that with single or double yellow lines there must be a block painted at a 90-degree angle at the end of the lines.
A spokesman said: "If this end line isn't there then the lines have been laid out incorrectly by the local authority and you would have grounds to challenge the ticket in court."
In the above case North Yorkshire Police admitted:
We have been open and honest about this matter from the beginning and we have admitted we were in the wrong
North Yorkshire Police
One has to ask the question when was the law allowed to be 'dumbed down' and by whom?
Well, it seems to be that adjudicators are applying their own interpretation to the law (TSRGD 2002) ... and just remember that the adjudicators are appointed by the Joint Committee and are remunerated by the Joint Committee.
Who are the Joint Committee? The Joint Committee comprises of members from the councils participating in Civil Parking Enforcement.
To ensure that all the lines and signs comply with the law is an expensive business ... hence the reason for 'dumbing down.'
Apparent bias in the Judicial context. Lord Goff of Chieveley cited the dictum of Blackburn J in R and Rand (1866) LR 1 QB 230, 232:
“Any direct pecuniary interest, however small, in the subject of inquiry, does disqualify a person from acting as a judge in the matter.”
Once it is realised by the motoring public that the 'independent' adjudication services are remunerated on a per ticket basis (60p per PCN in the case of the Traffic Penalty Tribunal) then the more tickets issued the more money they receive.
Successful technical defences based on councils failure to comply with TSRGD 2002 reduce the amount of PCNs that can be issued and enforced.
Any rocket scientists care to comment?
Oh, the case of Glenn Dickinson v Hull City Council has been given leave for Judicial Review on the grounds that the Traffic Penalty Tribunal are not independent and signs must be as prescribed in law. Looks like Herron v The Parking Adjudicator (independence of the Traffic Penalty Tribunal and TSRGD points) and Pendle v The Parking Adjudicator (TSRGD points) are likely to follow the same route after being refused at written stage are now both moving towards an oral hearing.
In the meantime, anyone with a ticket on an incorrectly terminated yellow line or coming before the Traffic Penalty Tribunal and raising concerns over their independence can request that their case be 'stayed' sine die pending the outcome of Dickinson.
Sunday, February 01, 2009
Nearly all speed cameras are illegal ...
With the Judicial Review on the illegality of decriminalised parking gathering pace another fightback by Britain's motorists is taking place. It is likely that hundreds if not thousands of motorists will ask to have their cases stayed pending the outcome of the case highlighted below.
Nearly all speed cameras in Britain are illegal following errors from every Home Secretary in the last 15 years, a court has heard.
Nearly all speed cameras in Britain are illegal following errors from every Home Secretary in the last 15 years, a court has heard.
By David Millward, Transport Editor 29 Jan 2009
Evidence was gathered illegally because 6,000 speed cameras were not given proper Parliamentary approval, it was claimed in a test case.
The action has been brought by a Aitken Brotherston, 61, a businessman from Lyme, Cheshire, who is appealing against a speeding conviction.
Michael Shrimpton, his counsel, told Manchester Crown Court that the case had wide-ranging implications.
It could mean that an estimated £600 million collected in fines and accompanying penalty points were invalid and trigger an avalanche of compensation claims from motorists.
Mr Shrimpton said a change in the 1988 Road Traffic Offenders Act in 1991 had not been properly implemented.
Until then the law that merely required the Home Secretary to approve the technical evaluation of the speed cameras. But since then additional Parliamentary approval has also been required for the devices.
Successive Home Secretaries, starting with Michael Howard in 1992, had failed to do so.
"But this was not done," Mr Shrimpton said. "It is an insult to Parliament in general that it had not identified a single device. This is a very important constitutional point.
"Since 1992 there have been hundreds of thousands of cases which we think are invalid.
"Speeding fines and convictions effect the very fabric of our society. Businesses and people's lives are severely affected when there is a ban from driving or fines.
"There are considerable economic considerations to take into account."
Mr Shrimpton added: "What the Department of Public Prosecutions is saying is that a Minister for example could decide to bring back hanging and he could do so without going to Parliament.
"He could draw up an order without Parliament seeing it and it would then become law."
Nearly 80 other cases are lined up behind Brotherston's which is likely to end up in the House of Lords.
The businessman, of was caught doing 52mph by a speed camera mounted in the back of a van in a 40mph zone.
He was photographed on the A5103 at 1pm on November 6 2006 while he drove his Y-reg Mitsubishi Gallant Estate out of the city centre.
Mr Brotherston received three points on his licence but he is adamant he was not speeding.
Guy Williams, the camera operator told the court: "That vehicle seemed to be driving in excess of 40mph. On seeing this I then aligned my crosshairs on the front of the car producing a reading of 52mph."
The case continues.
Evidence was gathered illegally because 6,000 speed cameras were not given proper Parliamentary approval, it was claimed in a test case.The action has been brought by a Aitken Brotherston, 61, a businessman from Lyme, Cheshire, who is appealing against a speeding conviction.
Michael Shrimpton, his counsel, told Manchester Crown Court that the case had wide-ranging implications.
It could mean that an estimated £600 million collected in fines and accompanying penalty points were invalid and trigger an avalanche of compensation claims from motorists.
Mr Shrimpton said a change in the 1988 Road Traffic Offenders Act in 1991 had not been properly implemented.
Until then the law that merely required the Home Secretary to approve the technical evaluation of the speed cameras. But since then additional Parliamentary approval has also been required for the devices.
Successive Home Secretaries, starting with Michael Howard in 1992, had failed to do so.
"But this was not done," Mr Shrimpton said. "It is an insult to Parliament in general that it had not identified a single device. This is a very important constitutional point.
"Since 1992 there have been hundreds of thousands of cases which we think are invalid.
"Speeding fines and convictions effect the very fabric of our society. Businesses and people's lives are severely affected when there is a ban from driving or fines.
"There are considerable economic considerations to take into account."
Mr Shrimpton added: "What the Department of Public Prosecutions is saying is that a Minister for example could decide to bring back hanging and he could do so without going to Parliament.
"He could draw up an order without Parliament seeing it and it would then become law."
Nearly 80 other cases are lined up behind Brotherston's which is likely to end up in the House of Lords.
The businessman, of was caught doing 52mph by a speed camera mounted in the back of a van in a 40mph zone.
He was photographed on the A5103 at 1pm on November 6 2006 while he drove his Y-reg Mitsubishi Gallant Estate out of the city centre.
Mr Brotherston received three points on his licence but he is adamant he was not speeding.
Guy Williams, the camera operator told the court: "That vehicle seemed to be driving in excess of 40mph. On seeing this I then aligned my crosshairs on the front of the car producing a reading of 52mph."
The case continues.
Saturday, January 31, 2009
NCP Services' Tim Cowen has had a busy week defending the indefensible
I must be careful however, 'cos last time I wrote about a parking matter involving Mr. Cowen and NCP Services he told me I had spelled 'indefensible' wrong so let's have a look at this week's excuses ... and we shall see who is going through a bad spell ...
The first one is ... Parking Ticket for Funeral Vicar reported by the BBC. Hearse outside a church. Photo of vicar on Blue Badge. Mourners telling the Civil Enforcement Officer it was the vicar's car and a funeral was taking place. Spokesman Tim Cowan said: "The CEO who issued the ticket is adamant that at no time did anyone explain the car was owned by a vicar conducting a funeral. "
Would like to know on a believability scale of 1 -10 as to whose word you would accept. The vicar and churchgoers or the NCP Services employee. To check out how Mr. Cowen responded when faced with similar accusations that his employees were less than honest click here
Second one is what you would call 'Bang to Rights Guv.'
Veteran parking campaigner, and fellow TalkSPORT guest Barrie Segal exposed illegal activity by a NCP Services Civil Enforcement Officer in the City of Westminster. The story was reported in the News of the World last Sunday and shows a CEO faking evidence. Great work by Barrie and the NOTW.
NCP Services spokesman Tim Cowen insisted wardens were not on commission, saying: “There is no incentive to us to issue these unenforceable tickets.”
It must be pointed out that the tickets are only 'unenforceable' when the motorist knows the law and catches the CEO out as in this case. If it is shown that this is common practice then there must be a Police investigation. All the money from fines issued at this location must be refunded immediately.
The first one is ... Parking Ticket for Funeral Vicar reported by the BBC. Hearse outside a church. Photo of vicar on Blue Badge. Mourners telling the Civil Enforcement Officer it was the vicar's car and a funeral was taking place. Spokesman Tim Cowan said: "The CEO who issued the ticket is adamant that at no time did anyone explain the car was owned by a vicar conducting a funeral. "Would like to know on a believability scale of 1 -10 as to whose word you would accept. The vicar and churchgoers or the NCP Services employee. To check out how Mr. Cowen responded when faced with similar accusations that his employees were less than honest click here
Second one is what you would call 'Bang to Rights Guv.'Veteran parking campaigner, and fellow TalkSPORT guest Barrie Segal exposed illegal activity by a NCP Services Civil Enforcement Officer in the City of Westminster. The story was reported in the News of the World last Sunday and shows a CEO faking evidence. Great work by Barrie and the NOTW.
NCP Services spokesman Tim Cowen insisted wardens were not on commission, saying: “There is no incentive to us to issue these unenforceable tickets.”
It must be pointed out that the tickets are only 'unenforceable' when the motorist knows the law and catches the CEO out as in this case. If it is shown that this is common practice then there must be a Police investigation. All the money from fines issued at this location must be refunded immediately.
Had a parking ticket in Newcastle? This one's black and white ...
Catching up after a hectic few weeks there are a few pretty big bombshells about to hit the parking 'industry.'
The first one is local and has been simmering for quite a while and involves Newcastle City Council's paring regime. This situation highlights the absurdity that is parking enforcement in this country. Sunderland, South Tyneside and Gateshead all operate decriminalised (or civil) parking enforcement whereas Newcastle still operates under the 1984 Road Traffic Regulation Act and therefore parking penalties are non-endorsable criminal offences.
Under the criminalised regime you are allowed to appeal to the Magistrates Court rather than an 'independent' adjudicator (funded by the council). The Magistrates are truly independent of the council and any appellant is likely to get a fair hearing.
Newcastle City Council operate a 'Fixed Daily Charge' scheme whereby such a charge is applied should you fail to adhere to the signed terms and conditions (whether it be loading / pay and display / disabled etc.).
Newcastle City Council operate a 'Fixed Daily Charge' scheme whereby such a charge is applied should you fail to adhere to the signed terms and conditions (whether it be loading / pay and display / disabled etc.).
Because the £30 Fixed Daily Charge signs are not prescribed in law in the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 Newcastle required Special Authorisation from the Secretary of State. This was granted in 1997 and the conditions applied to a specific Traffic Regulation Order ... which was revoked in 2001.
Enter Roberto Campoli ... a Sunderland musician who acquired a Fixed Penalty Charge whilst unloading his equipment from a Loading Bay outside the Carling Academy where he was playing a gig. His crime was that his car did not look like the vehicle indicated on the Fixed Daily Charge sign ... and therefore he got a ticket. He appealed and was given short shrift by Newcastle City Council ... and then approached us. We established, after acquiring the papers from various sources that the Special Authorisation related to a Traffic Order that had been revoked in 2001. The Department for Transport at first claimed to be unable to find the front page of the document but after intervention by Lord Lucas the damning evidence was revealed. We had already obtained a copy previously and had submitted it to the Court as part of a skeleton argument for Mr. Campoli. On his third visit to the Court on 19th January 2009 Newcastle City Council decided to offer no evidence. The press and media were informed.
We are currently awaiting a response as to how Newcastle intends to progress with other outstanding Fixed Daily Charge matters but it appears that they have had no legal authority to issued such penalties since 2001. It appears as though they are in a hole and their legal department are looking into it.
We are currently awaiting a response as to how Newcastle intends to progress with other outstanding Fixed Daily Charge matters but it appears that they have had no legal authority to issued such penalties since 2001. It appears as though they are in a hole and their legal department are looking into it.
How much is at stake ... well, with 185,000+ tickets at £30 a pop it comes to over £5.5m. If you have paid such a ticket or currently have one outstanding the drop us a line and we will give you copies of all the evidence neil@parkingappeals.co.uk
Meanwhile, read Roberto's tale below. The song by his band Black Sun will be released soon.
Roberto's parking-fine protest song
Roberto Campoli has composed a protest against his parking ticket.
26 January 2009
Parking charges are not fine says fed-up musician Roberto Campoli.
Roberto Campoli has composed a protest against his parking ticket.
26 January 2009
Parking charges are not fine says fed-up musician Roberto Campoli.
Friday, December 05, 2008
Revolutionary Vehicle Tracking Technology launched
A revolutionary, highly accurate, low-cost vehicle tracking system for the motorist is has just hit the market (FleetM8 Solo) ... at an amazingly low price compared to the competition and with a monthly licence of only £6.00!You can use it to challenge PCNs by showing exactly where you were parked and for how long. This product has multiple uses including monitoring your vehicle in real time as well as historically. Check it out.
A version is also available for companies with multiple vehicles. As well as monitoring vehicles' movements, including on-screen display of speed and location, FleetM8 can also produce numerous reports tailored to a company's individual needs.
Click on the image below to watch the demonstration and find out more. I hope you will be as impressed as I was when I was first introduced to the technology.
Click on the image below to watch the demonstration and find out more. I hope you will be as impressed as I was when I was first introduced to the technology.
Tuesday, December 02, 2008
Bromley Council taking the p
This time it is the council taking the p and receiving it.
This just shows the arrogance of a local authority ... and failing in its duty to exercise discretion ... even AFTER the adjudicator's recommendation.
Maggie Gebbett, 63, was issued with the fine back in May.
Carer wheels out pennies for fine
BBC News
A carer has paid her £80 parking fine in a wheelbarrow full of pennies in protest at the penalty.
Maggie Gebbet, 63, was fined in South Street, Bromley, south London, after the ticket she bought peeled itself off her car's windscreen in hot weather.
Despite an adjudicator recommending the charge be cancelled, Bromley Council has insisted it be paid.
Mrs Gebbett, from Chislehurst, Kent, said councillors had been "extremely shabby" over the charge issued in May.
'Credible witness'
"I can understand the council going through a procedure, but when they are given advice, surely they should take that advice. It's a total charade.
"I can't believe they have been so cavalier about the whole thing. I know this has happened to others, but people get frightened about the fine going up and won't pursue it."
I'm furious about the whole business and most upset about being criminalised when I have not broken the law
Maggie Gebbett
She added: I'm furious about the whole business and most upset about being criminalised when I have not broken the law."
The mother-of-two wrote to Bromley Council's parking officers enclosing a photocopy of her ticket asking them to see sense and withdraw the charge incurred in South Street.
The council declined and she was referred to the Parking and Traffic Appeals Service (PATAS).
Following a meeting with a PATAS adjudicator in October, he concluded Mrs Gebbett was an "honest, credible and convincing witness" and recommended the council cancel the charge.
However, the officers chose not to adopt the lawyer's findings and requested she pay the £80 fee by 3 December or face an increased charge of £120.
"The adjudicator concludes that the contravention did occur and the Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) was issued correctly," said a Bromley Council spokesman.
"Whilst we accept that mistakes do occur, motorists need to display their pay and display ticket."
This just shows the arrogance of a local authority ... and failing in its duty to exercise discretion ... even AFTER the adjudicator's recommendation.
Maggie Gebbett, 63, was issued with the fine back in May.
Carer wheels out pennies for fineBBC News
A carer has paid her £80 parking fine in a wheelbarrow full of pennies in protest at the penalty.
Maggie Gebbet, 63, was fined in South Street, Bromley, south London, after the ticket she bought peeled itself off her car's windscreen in hot weather.
Despite an adjudicator recommending the charge be cancelled, Bromley Council has insisted it be paid.
Mrs Gebbett, from Chislehurst, Kent, said councillors had been "extremely shabby" over the charge issued in May.
'Credible witness'
"I can understand the council going through a procedure, but when they are given advice, surely they should take that advice. It's a total charade.
"I can't believe they have been so cavalier about the whole thing. I know this has happened to others, but people get frightened about the fine going up and won't pursue it."
I'm furious about the whole business and most upset about being criminalised when I have not broken the law
Maggie Gebbett
She added: I'm furious about the whole business and most upset about being criminalised when I have not broken the law."
The mother-of-two wrote to Bromley Council's parking officers enclosing a photocopy of her ticket asking them to see sense and withdraw the charge incurred in South Street.
The council declined and she was referred to the Parking and Traffic Appeals Service (PATAS).
Following a meeting with a PATAS adjudicator in October, he concluded Mrs Gebbett was an "honest, credible and convincing witness" and recommended the council cancel the charge.
However, the officers chose not to adopt the lawyer's findings and requested she pay the £80 fee by 3 December or face an increased charge of £120.
"The adjudicator concludes that the contravention did occur and the Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) was issued correctly," said a Bromley Council spokesman.
"Whilst we accept that mistakes do occur, motorists need to display their pay and display ticket."
Saturday, November 08, 2008
Motorists in line for £3million refund after councils admit handing out illegal parking tickets
Motorists in line for £3million refund after councils admit handing out illegal parking tickets
By Daily Mail Reporter 24th October 2008
Motorists are entitled to millions of pounds in refunds after several councils admitted handing out illegal parking tickets.The climbdown follows an investigation of local authorities around the UK which revealed the extent of unlawful parking restrictions.
Now thousands of drivers who received fines as long ago as 2004 can get their money back after councils agreed to refund more than £3million in penalties.
Motorists are set to receive up to £3million in refunds after several councils admitted handing out illegal parking tickets
The decision comes after a landmark legal challenge over the use of parking tickets as a 'stealth tax'.
Last month, 'metric martyr' Neil Herron - who led the campaign to stop the prosecution of British shopkeepers who were using imperial measurements - lodged legal papers at the High Court challenging millions of parking tickets.Mr Herron believes that many are invalid because of flaws in the regulations which cover controlled parking zones.
And because of errors in the marking of lines and the wording of signs, many motorists have been fined unjustly, he claimed.
Metric martyr: Neil Herron believes many parking tickets are invalid
Although the court battle is still ongoing, his investigation - using freedom of information requests - has prompted action from several councils.
The largest rebate came from Surrey County Council which has agreed to refund motorists up to £2.8million because its CPZ regulations were incorrectly drafted in 2004.
Any motorist who got a ticket within that zone from 2004 to September 2008 is entitled to a rebate.
Earlier this year Sheffield Council agreed to refund £350,000 to 13,500 motorists for poor signage at bus and tram gates in Hillsborough.
Lancashire City Council is also under pressure to pay back fines after it emerged that white lines may not have been painted properly.
In South Tyneside, motorists fined for parking in incorrectly marked loading bays are getting their money back. And Harrow Council has been forced to cancel 3,400 tickets due to an error in their format.
Police are also investigating Leeds City Council, which is alleged to have fined motorists even though it knew its parking restrictions were not legal. The council denies this.
Since 1999, when the Government gave councils responsibility for handing out parking tickets - instead of the police - the number of fines has risen almost tenfold
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Excellent Transport for London Initiative ... forward on
Sunday, October 19, 2008
The Motorists Legal Challenge Fund receives support from London's Cabbies
The Motorists Legal Challenge Fund this week received support from London Cab Drivers Club in the form of a cheque for £500 from Grant Davis and Paul White.
While we were filming the clip below we had dozens of people wanting to support the Fund and agreed with Grant and Paul's sentiments that it was about time that someone stood up to be counted and their organisation and their drivers would show solidarity by making a donation.
Grant sums up the mood in the clip below ...
Click on the link to find out more about the London Cab Drivers Club
Neil Herron states: "It is fantastic to have support of the LCDC and their drivers. It is a pretty daunting task to consider a big legal action alone but knowing that the cabbbies are onside means that the word will spread very quickly indeed and the Fund will grow. We hope that cabbies across the country will add their names to the list of the Fund's supporters."
Spread the word ... this legal challenge is on behalf of every motorist in the country and is intended to bring an end to councils using parking fines simply to raise revenue.
While we were filming the clip below we had dozens of people wanting to support the Fund and agreed with Grant and Paul's sentiments that it was about time that someone stood up to be counted and their organisation and their drivers would show solidarity by making a donation.
Grant sums up the mood in the clip below ...
Click on the link to find out more about the London Cab Drivers Club
Neil Herron states: "It is fantastic to have support of the LCDC and their drivers. It is a pretty daunting task to consider a big legal action alone but knowing that the cabbbies are onside means that the word will spread very quickly indeed and the Fund will grow. We hope that cabbies across the country will add their names to the list of the Fund's supporters."
Spread the word ... this legal challenge is on behalf of every motorist in the country and is intended to bring an end to councils using parking fines simply to raise revenue.
Saturday, October 11, 2008
Another crack in the dam ...
... refunding 'as a gesture of goodwill.'
This is the type of arrogance and patronising behaviour that will incense everyone who has been fined.
We are rapidly approaching the tipping point.
More motorists get parking fine refunds
This is London Local
3rd September 2008
By Tomasz Johnson
Transport for London has been forced into backtracking even further over parking fines issued in Hampstead Garden Suburb.
Hundreds of motorists have forked out thousands of pounds after unwittingly parking in a poorly-marked bay in Market Place, unaware it was for loading and unloading only.
After two fines were over- turned by the independent parking adjudicator in June, TfL agreed to stop enforcing the bay and cancel all outstanding parking tickets.
But it has now gone one step further, following pressure from Hampstead Garden Suburb Residents’ Association (HGSRA) and refunded around 200 motorists a total of up to £12,000, after they sent letters complaining they had been duped.
Gary Shaw, of HGSRA, said: “We are delighted to have obtained these refunds for our members and for the many visitors to the suburb, who were unreasonably fined.
“This is another positive development after TfL withdrew all outstanding unpaid tickets earlier in the year.”
However, the fight is still not over for the association, which is demanding refunds on all tickets, whether they were challenged or not.
A TfL spokeswoman said it was not obliged to issue the refunds and did so “as a gesture of goodwill”.
She added: “While the adjudication hearing applies only to those penalty charge notices (PCNs) heard, TfL has taken the unusual step of reviewing other PCNs issued at this location. We have decided we will not be contesting appeals lodged, nor will we continue enforcement on any outstanding PCNs at this location.
“While this is not required by the adjudication, TfL feels it is an appropriate and positive step in responding to the issues at Market Place.”
An internal memo obtained from TfL under the Freedom of Information Act, reveals the loading bay in Market Place was TfL’s hottest spot for issuing fines.
The memo refers to a “significant level of antagonism” caused by the bay and others like it, where a high number of motorists had challenged their fines.
It also mentions the “risk at this area that customers who have already paid will be challenging TfL for refunds of PCNs.”
Mr Shaw added: “The system disgracefully prejudices the public and we do not believe that TfL should be even a penny better off as a result of what has happened in Market Place.
“We will be pressing TfL to return all remaining fines and for a charitable donation to be made in respect of any cases where the motorists can no longer be traced.”
This is the type of arrogance and patronising behaviour that will incense everyone who has been fined.
We are rapidly approaching the tipping point.
More motorists get parking fine refunds
This is London Local
3rd September 2008
By Tomasz Johnson
Transport for London has been forced into backtracking even further over parking fines issued in Hampstead Garden Suburb.
Hundreds of motorists have forked out thousands of pounds after unwittingly parking in a poorly-marked bay in Market Place, unaware it was for loading and unloading only.
After two fines were over- turned by the independent parking adjudicator in June, TfL agreed to stop enforcing the bay and cancel all outstanding parking tickets.
But it has now gone one step further, following pressure from Hampstead Garden Suburb Residents’ Association (HGSRA) and refunded around 200 motorists a total of up to £12,000, after they sent letters complaining they had been duped.
Gary Shaw, of HGSRA, said: “We are delighted to have obtained these refunds for our members and for the many visitors to the suburb, who were unreasonably fined.
“This is another positive development after TfL withdrew all outstanding unpaid tickets earlier in the year.”
However, the fight is still not over for the association, which is demanding refunds on all tickets, whether they were challenged or not.
A TfL spokeswoman said it was not obliged to issue the refunds and did so “as a gesture of goodwill”.
She added: “While the adjudication hearing applies only to those penalty charge notices (PCNs) heard, TfL has taken the unusual step of reviewing other PCNs issued at this location. We have decided we will not be contesting appeals lodged, nor will we continue enforcement on any outstanding PCNs at this location.
“While this is not required by the adjudication, TfL feels it is an appropriate and positive step in responding to the issues at Market Place.”
An internal memo obtained from TfL under the Freedom of Information Act, reveals the loading bay in Market Place was TfL’s hottest spot for issuing fines.
The memo refers to a “significant level of antagonism” caused by the bay and others like it, where a high number of motorists had challenged their fines.
It also mentions the “risk at this area that customers who have already paid will be challenging TfL for refunds of PCNs.”
Mr Shaw added: “The system disgracefully prejudices the public and we do not believe that TfL should be even a penny better off as a result of what has happened in Market Place.
“We will be pressing TfL to return all remaining fines and for a charitable donation to be made in respect of any cases where the motorists can no longer be traced.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
