District Auditors asked to investigate councils ...

... is that the Grim Reaper knocking at Parking Services' door?

As the Civil Parking Enforcement meltdown continues across the country with more and more councils being caught out using illegal signs and lines and non-compliant paperwork many angry motorists are looking to expose their councils unlawful activity.

But there is no Government Watchdog.

There is no Parking Ombudsman.

The Department for Transport is toothless and fiddling while Rome burns, and in a state of turmoil ... do they support the councils and burn TSRGD or do they stand by the law and tell councils they have broken it?

Councils are desperate to have their illegal signs 'authorised' but at what cost? The admission that most of the parking bays are illegal and therefore unenforceable ... and more objections and more legal action?

The Minister however, thinks that everything is Rosie ... but why should she try and solve a mess of nightmare proportions when the Government is ready to call in the priest for the Last Rites?

So what can you, the aggrieved motorist and council tax payer do to expose the illegal activity of your council?

The answer is simple ... you can object to the accounts and object to any unlawfully derived or 'ultra-vires' income contained in those accounts, whether it be from illegal restrictions or non-compliant paperwork or from a failure to follow contractual obligations.

You can Click here to access a guide and an objection letter.

Councils are supposed to exercise due diligence when carrying out parking enforcement, especially with regard to their cancellation policies, and the collection and enforcement of PCNs. More evidence is coming in to us of councils who are cancelling tickets when non-compliance is pointed out by an appellant, but continuing to collect from those unaware of the law. Our recent case against a Lancashire Council was 'no contested' after our skeleton argument revealed unlawful documentation ... but the council has not volunteered refunds to those motorists who have been misled by unlawful paperwork.

Councils do not need reminding that restrictions and paperwork MUST comply with the law ... whether it be the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 or the 1991 Road Traffic Act or the new Traffic Management Act 2004.
There is no excuse for them getting it wrong ... especially with teams of highly paid officers and highways engineers.

Don't forget that when they applied to the Department for Transport for Decriminalised or Civil Enforcement powers they had to conduct a review of their Traffic Orders and associated signs and lines in order to ensure compliance. This is where they knew that the DfT had no power to check ... and so many councils misled the DfT in their applications. It would have cost too much to correct everything and the DfT wouldn't check ... so who would find out?

Well guys ... the game is up and the deceit is being uncovered and the chickens are coming home to roost. Motorists who have been fleeced by councils' illegal activity will be rather angry indeed that they have been deceived, especially the ones who have had the bailiffs come to visit and cars and goods taken.

Chanting the mantra that there is an appeals process is not good enough ... because that only works if the council has obeyed the law. If the signs or paperwork are illegal there can be no contravention. If the council KNEW (and there is a vicarious liability for the Chief Executive for the actions of his officers) then it becomes a lot more serious indeed ... and that is why the whistleblowers are whistling. They do not want to be the scapegoats for those higher up the ladder.

If any council officer knowingly misrepresents the situation then it becomes a very serious matter indeed ... hence a number of individuals across the country preparing cases for the Police and their own civil actions against individual council officers who, it appears, may not be protected by any council insurance policy. Perhaps Parking Services Managers should be hastily bringing their misdemeanours to the attention of their Chief Executives and elected Members and confessing their sins ... because the consequences of not doing so could be very grave indeed.

The public has had enough of being fleeced for the most minor of contraventions ... and because they have been treated with arrogant contempt for many years by councils and their officers who have seen them as an easy stealth tax victim there are many who will shed no tears when the dismissals for misconduct and legal action begins.

The long memories of disabled badge holders being ticketed for having a clock upside down, the motorists with a £100 penalty for being 2 minutes late, the car clamped and towed for parking a couple of inches over a yellow line will not care a jot for the crocodile tears of the Draconian parking enforcement apologists.

Let's hope the cry of mea culpa comes before the courts begin to be filled rather than after.

Refunds to come in Sheffield? Just you wait ... watch this space

SHEFFIELD TRAM GATE RESTITUTION CASE

PARKINGAPPEALS.CO.UK LEAD THE WAY FOR £350,000 CASH WINDFALL FOR MOTORISTS…

BUT WILL THE REFUNDS BE FROM PENDING LEGAL ACTION OR COUNCIL COMMON SENSE?

After the 2008 local council election victory in Sheffield, with the Lib Dems taking control from Labour, party leader Nick Clegg stated:
“ The Lib Dems would run Sheffield in a more open and honest way.”
(Sheffield Star 3rd May 2008)

The timing of Alan Bangert’s Tram Gate Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) victory (Bangert, Marcelli and others v Sheffield City Council before NPAS) could not have been better placed for the Lib Dems to set an example nationally by refunding motorists who have been fined unlawfully.

Local man Alan Bangert successfully challenged his own Hillsborough Tram Gate CCTV PCNs when a National Parking Adjudication Service (NPAS) adjudicator ruled that the restriction was unlawfully signed. A request of a review of that decision (consolidated with others) by Sheffield City Council was rejected by the Chief Adjudicator who agreed with the previous decision and ruled against the council.

This leaves the new ruling group with an easily solved dilemma. The Hillsborough Tram Gate, at Middlewood Road and Langsett Road, was introduced by the previous administration and had been marked unlawfully (ie. it did not comply with the road signing law, the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002).

As a result, and it is clear from the numbers involved that the restriction was inadequately and misleadingly signed, 13,353 motorists were fined in just under twelve months (July 07 – May 08) netting the council over £350,000 in unlawfully derived income. Because of the delay in serving the CCTV fines by post some received a warning notice at the same time as PCNs demanding £60 which the previous Labour administration refused to cancel, and some didn’t receive a warning. The reasons freely given for the inconsistency were that the operation was understaffed and notices couldn't be sent out to all transgressors.

The issue of councils using unlawful road markings and signs has been featured nationally in recent weeks with the Department for Transport stating that councils should ‘seriously consider refunding motorists fined unlawfully.’(BBC 29th May 2008)

So, what are the options for Sheffield’s new Lib Dem ruling group?

Neil Herron of ParkingAppeals.co.uk campaigns on behalf of motorists unlawfully fined and is leading Alan Bangert’s call for motorists to be refunded.

He states:
“ This really is an easily solved dilemma for the council. The simplest and cheapest option would be to apologise on behalf of the council and voluntarily refund everyone who have paid PCNs in the unlawfully signed restriction … without delay.

This would set an example nationally by ‘doing the decent thing’ and showing the way forward to the Labour and Conservative councils who have consistently used CCTV enforcement of bus lanes and parking to raise revenue rather than as effective traffic management.

Quite obviously if over 13,000 people were being fined at this location ( on average 84 a day) then there was something clearly wrong with signing and not driver behaviour.”

He went on:

"The other option would be to refuse to refund and attempt to retain the unlawfully derived income in the face of a potential high profile legal challenge in the form of a class action and a challenge to the council’s accounts causing a very uncomfortable investigation by the District Auditor who would have to confirm that the council has been ‘unjustly enriched’ by taking money off motorists to which it is not entitled.”

Alan Bangert, a married father of three, disabled after an accident in a steelworks seven years ago had appealed on a point of principle after getting three PCNs without warning. He had paid the first and then got two more and admitted that paying them would have been a struggle but it was the injustice that spurred him on. He now not only wants his £30 refunded he wants to lead the fight for justice for everyone.

He states:

"I hope that common sense prevails and the council reconsider their position and do the decent thing and show themselves to be better than the outgoing, uncaring, un-listening and arrogant Labour party. I am quite prepared to lead the fight to the High Court if necessary but I hope that the Liberal Democrats will set an example nationally by holding their hands up to this mistake made by the previous administration. It will go a long way and command a great deal of respect from the voters in Sheffield.”

ParkingAppeals.co.uk have leading barrister and motorist’s champion, Oliver Mishcon, lined up to handle any legal action, including a class action on behalf of the 13,000 fined motorists.

He said:
“ Councils are not allowed to keep the money derived from fining motorists unlawfully. They have benefited from what is called ‘unjust enrichment’ and as such they have a duty to actively seek out those fined and refund them.

This case is the tip of a massive iceberg which is likely to affect many councils nationally and we are looking forward to getting the matter before the courts where we are confident of a precedent setting victory for Britain’s motorists.”

However, it is hoped that legal action may not be necessary as it has been confirmed that the fine money has been set aside by the council in case it needs to be repaid in what is in effect confirmation of the position that voluntary restitution is hopefully a foregone conclusion.

In a further admission John Mothersole, the council’s interim Chief Executive revealed that “we are reluctantly going to change the signs to comply with the adjudicator’s review.”

The adjudicator’s view is that the restriction was not correctly marked in accordance with the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 and are therefore not lawful.

Have you been fined and want your money back?

Anyone who has paid a fine at the Hillsborough Tram Gate and would like more information simply e-mail enquiries@parkingappeals.co.uk and title the e-mail ‘Sheffield’ and include your name and address and ParkingAppeals.co.uk will ensure that justice is done on your behalf.


ENDS:

CONTACT:

Neil Herron
Director
Parking Appeals.co.uk
neil@parkingappeals.co.uk