14th September 2005
Councillor Richard David Tate
25 Ennerdale Street
Hetton le Hole
DH5 0DT
Dear Councillor Tate,
Re: Investigation into Sunderland City Council / National Car Parks (NCP) unlawful activities
From press reports (Sunderland Echo 13th September 2005) I am led to believe that you are to undertake an internal investigation into Sunderland City Council's Decriminalised Parking Regime initiated under Statutory Instrument 2002 No. 3266 The Road Traffic (Permitted Parking Area and Special Parking Area) (City of Sunderland) Order 2002.
I would like to make available to either the committee or yourself the substantive evidence that I have regarding the malpractice and unlawful implementation of Sunderland City Council's Parking Regime including evidence of obtaining money / money orders by deception, false accounting and other such matters which may be construed as offences under the Theft (Amendment) Act 1996.
Also, evidence of the lack of scrutiny and control over the contracting agent, NCP, and inefficiencies and maladministration by Parking Services is available in order for you to have a full understanding of the background to the investigation that you will be conducting.
I understand that the Sunderland City Council DPE (Decriminalised Parking Enforcement) application simply gave the Secretary of State 'reassurances' that the necessary Traffic Regulation Orders and signs "were being reviewed and would be updated and amended where necessary in time for the DPE start date."
The SoS received confirmation that City of Sunderland said that any necessary revisions to the TRO's would "be made by the commencement date and that all parking restrictions would be signed in accordance with the TSRGD 1994."
I have substantial evidence that this was not the case with regard to the TROs and time dated photographic evidence of the incorrect signage.
I have also evidence that Sunderland City Council was made aware of this on numerous occasions.
It appears therefore that not only the motorists, residents, ratepayers and businesses have been misled, but also the Secretary of State.
I would be grateful therefore if you would confirm by return that you are to be responsible for the investigation and what the procedures and parameters, including timescale, of that investigation will be. I wish you also to detail what courses of action are available should the investigation reveal evidence of malpractice (misfeasance and malfeasance) and other criminal offences.
Will you be in the first instance asking Northumbria Police and the District Auditor to conduct a separate parallel investigation or will it be dependent on the outcome of your investigation?
I would be grateful if you would please confirm that you are agreeable to meeting either formally or informally in the first instance with a view to presenting or discussing evidence, or even giving you an overview of the situation, to either yourself or the investigating committee.
If this is not acceptable then I would require a full explanation as to why not?
Could you please also provide me with details of protocols and procedures required to surcharge the city's councillors and the necessary legislative authority to do so, as obviously none of the costs of correcting such unlawful actions should be borne by the city's ratepayers?
If you can also confirm whether it will be the full council that would be responsible in such an instance, surcharging, or whether it would simply be those councillors that approved the DPE scheme and failed to scrutinise and observe that the correct procedures had been adhered to resulting in such substantial sums being taken unlawfully from the city's motorists?
If it is the full council then can you confirm that as a councillor you may have a personal, prejudicial, pecuniary or preferential interest in the outcome or result of your own investigation should a surcharge be necessary and could therefore not, nor could any other councillor from Sunderland City Council, form part of any investigative committee?
Can you please confirm that the City's Legal Department is also under investigation and therefore will not be in a position to advise you on this matter and you will have to take outside, independent legal advice?
To date the District Auditor has been kept fully informed and Northumbria Police's Economic Crime Unit has been made aware of the situation that is developing. National and local press and media are keeping the residents and ratepayers of Sunderland informed.
I am sure that you appreciate the very serious nature of the position that Sunderland City Council finds itself in and will ensure that a full and thorough independent investigation is conducted with absolute transparency. On that note I believe it is necessary to keep as many interested parties fully informed and they have been copied into this communication. I have also copied in Member Services in order for them to make this letter available to all Sunderland City Councillors who may now need to take independent legal advice.
I look forward to your response.
Yours sincerely,
Neil Herron
cc. Member Services, Sunderland City Council
cc. Ged Fitzgerald, Chief Executive
cc. Bob Symonds, Leader of the Council
cc. Bob Rayner, City Solicitor
cc. Phil Barrett, Director of Development and Regeneration
cc. Councillor Peter Wood, Leader of the Opposition
cc. Councillor Lee Martin, Barnes Ward
cc. Christopher Booker, Sunday Telegraph
cc. Ross Smith, Newcastle Journal
cc. Tony Kearney, Northern Echo
cc. Jeremy Wicking, Sunderland Echo
cc. Tiffany Royce, Tyne Tees Television
cc. Rob Young, BBC Radio Newcastle
cc. Julie Howe, Sun FM
cc. Rik Martin, Century Radio
cc. Erica Moss, Public Finance Mgazine
cc. Ray Massey, Daily Mail
cc. Philip Johnston, Daily Telegraph
cc. Richard Littlejohn, The Sun
Wednesday, September 14, 2005
Driven to complain
Parking fines pay appeal panel's costs
by Chloe Griffiths
The Journal
14th September 2005
A National appeals tribunal which rules on parking disputes between motorists and councils should be disbanded, a North-East campaigner says.
Political crusader Neil Herron believes the body which assesses parking fine appeals cannot be truly independent - because it is funded by parking fines.
The National Parking Adjudication Service (NPAS) was set up in 1999 to replace the courts and independently adjudicate on parking ticket appeals.
But it has been revealed that the NPAS receives 60p from every parking ticket that ouncils issue.
Mr Herron says that the service is completely funded by local authorities from the tickets they issue - and therefore wholly dependent upon them. Mr Herron, of Sunderland, says the service cannot claim to be either independent or impartial.
Sunderland was one of about 80 local authorities which signed up to the 'decriminalised' scheme.
Mr Herron said: "NPAS is neither independent, nor a court of law, but has misled the public into believing this is the case. The motorist can no longer feel as though he can be treated in a fair and impartial manner."
He has called for an end to the system, which he says offers "no independence, no scrutiny and no recourse for motorists."
An NPAS spokeswoman confirmed yesterday that the Road Traffic Act 1991 required councils to fund parking adjuducation at a cost of 60p per fine.
But she said this lifted the burden from the taxpayer and the people on the tribunals remained impartial.
She said: "Appeals are decided by adjudicators who are lawyers, appointed through the normal judicial appointment process. Every adjudicator considers and decides each case on its own merits."
She said 67% of appeals were successful.
Mr Herron said the situation was further complicated within Sunderland because 700 tickets had been issued unlawfully by the council to people parking on a taxi rank since 2003.
Sunderland City Council is refunding £21,000 in parking fines.
Mr Herron is asking if cheated motorists will lose their 60p given to NPAS from these illegal tickets.
yesterday the council declined to comment, saying the funding arrangement was decided by government.
by Chloe Griffiths
The Journal
14th September 2005
A National appeals tribunal which rules on parking disputes between motorists and councils should be disbanded, a North-East campaigner says.
Political crusader Neil Herron believes the body which assesses parking fine appeals cannot be truly independent - because it is funded by parking fines.
The National Parking Adjudication Service (NPAS) was set up in 1999 to replace the courts and independently adjudicate on parking ticket appeals.
But it has been revealed that the NPAS receives 60p from every parking ticket that ouncils issue.
Mr Herron says that the service is completely funded by local authorities from the tickets they issue - and therefore wholly dependent upon them. Mr Herron, of Sunderland, says the service cannot claim to be either independent or impartial.
Sunderland was one of about 80 local authorities which signed up to the 'decriminalised' scheme.
Mr Herron said: "NPAS is neither independent, nor a court of law, but has misled the public into believing this is the case. The motorist can no longer feel as though he can be treated in a fair and impartial manner."
He has called for an end to the system, which he says offers "no independence, no scrutiny and no recourse for motorists."
An NPAS spokeswoman confirmed yesterday that the Road Traffic Act 1991 required councils to fund parking adjuducation at a cost of 60p per fine.
But she said this lifted the burden from the taxpayer and the people on the tribunals remained impartial.
She said: "Appeals are decided by adjudicators who are lawyers, appointed through the normal judicial appointment process. Every adjudicator considers and decides each case on its own merits."
She said 67% of appeals were successful.
Mr Herron said the situation was further complicated within Sunderland because 700 tickets had been issued unlawfully by the council to people parking on a taxi rank since 2003.
Sunderland City Council is refunding £21,000 in parking fines.
Mr Herron is asking if cheated motorists will lose their 60p given to NPAS from these illegal tickets.
yesterday the council declined to comment, saying the funding arrangement was decided by government.
Probe into parking tickets blunder
Sunderland Echo
Tuesday 13th September 2005
AN INVESTIGATION has been ordered by council bosses into the blunder that saw them refund hundreds of parking tickets issued illegally.
Sunderland City Council has admitted that about 700 tickets were wrongly put on cars parked in taxi ranks in the city.
Traffic wardens slapped the tickets on cars parked in the city's 14 taxi ranks – but they did not have legal powers to do so.
An internal investigation is now under way at the civic centre into how the mess came about. It followed the decriminalisation of parking in the city two-and-a-half years ago, which took the issue out of police hands. The investigation's findings are to be reported to the city's environment scrutiny committee. Its chairman, Coun David Tate, said today: "The refund is a big issue and we want to know how we got into this in the first place.
"It is not just highways officers but also legal officers at the council that will be part of this scrutiny.
"It is not known how many of the 700 tickets were paid for at the £30 rate or at a higher rate but the total sum has been estimated at no less than £21,000. The council has urged anyone who paid to contact staff.
"The problem came to light as part of a dispute over parking charges in the city mounted by motorists and campaigner Neil Herron. They have claimed proper legal orders on parking were not written up by the council.Mr Herron said: "It is not just a simple matter of putting the traffic orders in place, but when the council wrote to the Government that all traffic orders were in place they clearly misled the Secretary of State.
"Mr Herron claimed some people were finding it difficult to get refunds from the council and said it had signed off its accounts when they weren't proper and correct. He added: "There a lot of unanswered questions over Sunderland Council's parking regime."
13 September 2005
Next »
Page 1 of
Tuesday 13th September 2005
AN INVESTIGATION has been ordered by council bosses into the blunder that saw them refund hundreds of parking tickets issued illegally.
Sunderland City Council has admitted that about 700 tickets were wrongly put on cars parked in taxi ranks in the city.
Traffic wardens slapped the tickets on cars parked in the city's 14 taxi ranks – but they did not have legal powers to do so.
An internal investigation is now under way at the civic centre into how the mess came about. It followed the decriminalisation of parking in the city two-and-a-half years ago, which took the issue out of police hands. The investigation's findings are to be reported to the city's environment scrutiny committee. Its chairman, Coun David Tate, said today: "The refund is a big issue and we want to know how we got into this in the first place.
"It is not just highways officers but also legal officers at the council that will be part of this scrutiny.
"It is not known how many of the 700 tickets were paid for at the £30 rate or at a higher rate but the total sum has been estimated at no less than £21,000. The council has urged anyone who paid to contact staff.
"The problem came to light as part of a dispute over parking charges in the city mounted by motorists and campaigner Neil Herron. They have claimed proper legal orders on parking were not written up by the council.Mr Herron said: "It is not just a simple matter of putting the traffic orders in place, but when the council wrote to the Government that all traffic orders were in place they clearly misled the Secretary of State.
"Mr Herron claimed some people were finding it difficult to get refunds from the council and said it had signed off its accounts when they weren't proper and correct. He added: "There a lot of unanswered questions over Sunderland Council's parking regime."
13 September 2005
Next »
Page 1 of
Tuesday, September 13, 2005
Government Office plays Pontius Pilate
It is staggering that the Government Office of the North East is choosing to wash its hands of this whole affair. As the investigation broadens questions will have to be asked as to why the Secretary of State merely relied on the 'reassurances' of Sunderland City Councils.
There were no checks as to the legality of the TROs or signage in the City before NCP were unleashed on the businesses, ratepayers and motorists of the city with their Draconian 'for profit' parking regime.
The GONE and the Secretary of State will be attached to any criminal proceedings as they have clearly not demonstrated any duty of care whatsoever.
How many other such instances exist over the rest of the country?
The big question is 'who knowingly misled the Secretary of State and which councillors should have scrutinised the application?'
From: "Martin GIBSON" Martin.GIBSON@gone.gsi.gov.uk
To: Capt. Green
Subject: Re: Sunderland Parking>
Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2005 11:52:
Mr xxxxxxxx
Thanks for your email of 26 August 2005 regarding the above.
I have consulted on January is with colleagues in DfT.
I should begin by saying that the Sunderland Permitted Parking Area / Special Parking Area Statutory Instrument [SI] Order of 2002 was not implemented as a result of the 1996 TRO procedure regulations, it was made under paragraphs 1(1) and 2(1) of Schedule 3 to the Road Traffic Act 1991.
It is this Act that allows local authorities like City of Sunderland Council to apply to the Secretary of State for Decriminalised Parking Enforcement powers.
Our colleagues in DfT have checked the Sunderland Decriminalised Parking Enforcement [DPE] application and are satisfied that there were no errors in processing of their DPE application.
Therefore, the SI order went ahead as normal and there does not appear to be any doubt as to the legality of DPE in Sunderland.
What appears to be the issue here are the Traffic Regulation Orders [TROs] for DPE in Sunderland.
These are matters for the City of Sunderland Council, not DfT or Government Office for the North East.
I understand that City of Sunderland said in their DPE application that their TROs were being reviewed and would be updated and amended where necessary in time for the DPE start date.
Mr Herron asked if the Secretary of State was told if the TRO's were all in force and properly signed. The SoS received confirmation that City of Sunderland said that any necessary revisions to the TRO's would be made by the commencement date and that all parking restrictions would be signed in accordance with the TSRGD 1994.
It is normal practice to get this sort of confirmation from the relevant Highways Authority before the Minister signs the DPE order.
I hope this answers your questions.
Original Letter to:
26/08/2005 14:03:35 >>>>>Martin Gibson>>>Dear Sir,>>Please find attached letter as requested>">Martin Gibson
Dear Sir,
Please find attached letter as requested
1. I would draw your attention to the reserve powers of the Secretary of State under Schedule 9 RTRA 84 paragraph 2 (b)
2. Prior to the making of the Consolidated Order on 13th January 2003, coming into force 15th Jan 2003 , there was ample evidence that many of the previous orders were not signed in accordance with the 1994 regulations.
Consequently the Consolidated Order has never been in force
3. We (Neil Herron and myself) have chosen to concentrate on the non-CPZ order as this is proof that many of the traffic orders in the alleged consolidated order were not properly signed. Without resorting to numerous contemporary photographs
4. The Secretary of State prior to making a 'Special Parking Area' was told in writing that the Traffic Orders for Sunderland were all in force (i.e.properly signed)
This was a complete fabrication resulting in the fraudulent collection of monies, well in excess of £2MILLON pounds
Yours faithfully
Capt D.W.Green
There were no checks as to the legality of the TROs or signage in the City before NCP were unleashed on the businesses, ratepayers and motorists of the city with their Draconian 'for profit' parking regime.
The GONE and the Secretary of State will be attached to any criminal proceedings as they have clearly not demonstrated any duty of care whatsoever.
How many other such instances exist over the rest of the country?
The big question is 'who knowingly misled the Secretary of State and which councillors should have scrutinised the application?'
From: "Martin GIBSON" Martin.GIBSON@gone.gsi.gov.uk
To: Capt. Green
Subject: Re: Sunderland Parking>
Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2005 11:52:
Mr xxxxxxxx
Thanks for your email of 26 August 2005 regarding the above.
I have consulted on January is with colleagues in DfT.
I should begin by saying that the Sunderland Permitted Parking Area / Special Parking Area Statutory Instrument [SI] Order of 2002 was not implemented as a result of the 1996 TRO procedure regulations, it was made under paragraphs 1(1) and 2(1) of Schedule 3 to the Road Traffic Act 1991.
It is this Act that allows local authorities like City of Sunderland Council to apply to the Secretary of State for Decriminalised Parking Enforcement powers.
Our colleagues in DfT have checked the Sunderland Decriminalised Parking Enforcement [DPE] application and are satisfied that there were no errors in processing of their DPE application.
Therefore, the SI order went ahead as normal and there does not appear to be any doubt as to the legality of DPE in Sunderland.
What appears to be the issue here are the Traffic Regulation Orders [TROs] for DPE in Sunderland.
These are matters for the City of Sunderland Council, not DfT or Government Office for the North East.
I understand that City of Sunderland said in their DPE application that their TROs were being reviewed and would be updated and amended where necessary in time for the DPE start date.
Mr Herron asked if the Secretary of State was told if the TRO's were all in force and properly signed. The SoS received confirmation that City of Sunderland said that any necessary revisions to the TRO's would be made by the commencement date and that all parking restrictions would be signed in accordance with the TSRGD 1994.
It is normal practice to get this sort of confirmation from the relevant Highways Authority before the Minister signs the DPE order.
I hope this answers your questions.
Original Letter to:
26/08/2005 14:03:35 >>>>>Martin Gibson>>>Dear Sir,>>Please find attached letter as requested>">Martin Gibson
Dear Sir,
Please find attached letter as requested
1. I would draw your attention to the reserve powers of the Secretary of State under Schedule 9 RTRA 84 paragraph 2 (b)
2. Prior to the making of the Consolidated Order on 13th January 2003, coming into force 15th Jan 2003 , there was ample evidence that many of the previous orders were not signed in accordance with the 1994 regulations.
Consequently the Consolidated Order has never been in force
3. We (Neil Herron and myself) have chosen to concentrate on the non-CPZ order as this is proof that many of the traffic orders in the alleged consolidated order were not properly signed. Without resorting to numerous contemporary photographs
4. The Secretary of State prior to making a 'Special Parking Area' was told in writing that the Traffic Orders for Sunderland were all in force (i.e.properly signed)
This was a complete fabrication resulting in the fraudulent collection of monies, well in excess of £2MILLON pounds
Yours faithfully
Capt D.W.Green
Constitutional Confrontation drawing closer...Common Law Repealed
Thanks to Anoneumouse at Anglo Saxon Chronicles for this:
The Common Law Repealed
"However in my view the Act (Bill of Rights 1689) cannot be read literally because to do so would ignore the obvious changes between the legal system in 1689 and the present day"
"The intention of the Act was to provide the citizen with certain rights and to prevent the imposition of any financial penalty without there being a right of challenge, which certainly in areas of criminal law is one purpose of the more modern European Convention on Human Rights".
These are the words of Stephen J. Knap Parking Adjudicator
Well Mr Knap, "Non in legendo sed in intelligendo leges consistunt".The laws consist not in being read, but in being understood
Section 11 of the Human Rights Act 1998
A person's reliance on a Convention right does not restrict-
(a) any other right or freedom conferred on him by or under any law having effect in any part of the United Kingdom;
The Bill of Rights still has effect, it has not been repealed.
The National Parking Adjudication Service is not a court of law.
By assuming and exercising a power of dispensing with and suspending of laws, and the execution of laws, without consent of parliament is also illegal under the Bill of Rights.
One only has to apply the principle of Pepper v Hart [1993] 1 All ER 42
Using the principle of Pepper v. Hart, which allows us to refer to what was said in Parliament to determine what the intention of Parliament was, we can determine what the original contract between crown and people is;
"The Rights of the people had been confirmed by early Kings both before and after the Norman line began. Accordingly, the people have always had the same title to their liberties and properties that England's Kings have unto their Crowns. The several Charters of the people's rights, most particularly Magna Carta, were not grants from the King, but recognition's by the King of rights that have been reserved or that appertained unto us by common law and immemorial custom."
(Sir Robert Howard, a member of the Committee's which drafted the Bill of Rights).
Confirmatio cartarum [25 Edw. I][29]
"No Freeman shall be taken, or imprisoned, or be disseised of his Freehold, or Liberties, or free Customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or any otherwise destroyed; nor will we pass upon him, nor condemn him, but by lawful Judgment of his Peers, or by the Law of the Land."
Note: in the 1354 version, "by the law of the land" was changed to "by due process of law."
We will sell to no man, we will not deny or defer to any man either Justice or Right.
The National Parking Adjudication Service in the UK is not a court of Law within the meaning of Article 234 EC, therefore its decision will be in contravention of Article 6 of The European Convention on Human Rights.
It is unlawful for a public authority to act in a way which is incompatible with a Convention right.
The Claim of Rights 1628 amplified and confirmed by the Declaration and Bill of Rights of 1688/9 ensures that no law may be suspended or dispensed with unless with consent of Parliament. (given in judgement by Lord Bingham, House of Lords: Diane Pretty, Motor Neurone disease case, Nov. 2001) Which in turn means that suspension or dispensing of law can only be made by the express agreement of Parliament.
In other words by Statute, ensuring ‘The Rule Of Law’ as the only Constitutional means of governance.
(Hansard, 21 July 1993 column 352), the Speaker of the House of Commons issued a reminder to the courts: 'There has of course been no amendment to the Bill of Rights…the house is entitled to expect that the Bill of Rights will be fully respected by all those appearing before the courts.'
The Common Law Repealed
"However in my view the Act (Bill of Rights 1689) cannot be read literally because to do so would ignore the obvious changes between the legal system in 1689 and the present day"
"The intention of the Act was to provide the citizen with certain rights and to prevent the imposition of any financial penalty without there being a right of challenge, which certainly in areas of criminal law is one purpose of the more modern European Convention on Human Rights".
These are the words of Stephen J. Knap Parking Adjudicator
Well Mr Knap, "Non in legendo sed in intelligendo leges consistunt".The laws consist not in being read, but in being understood
Section 11 of the Human Rights Act 1998
A person's reliance on a Convention right does not restrict-
(a) any other right or freedom conferred on him by or under any law having effect in any part of the United Kingdom;
The Bill of Rights still has effect, it has not been repealed.
The National Parking Adjudication Service is not a court of law.
By assuming and exercising a power of dispensing with and suspending of laws, and the execution of laws, without consent of parliament is also illegal under the Bill of Rights.
One only has to apply the principle of Pepper v Hart [1993] 1 All ER 42
Using the principle of Pepper v. Hart, which allows us to refer to what was said in Parliament to determine what the intention of Parliament was, we can determine what the original contract between crown and people is;
"The Rights of the people had been confirmed by early Kings both before and after the Norman line began. Accordingly, the people have always had the same title to their liberties and properties that England's Kings have unto their Crowns. The several Charters of the people's rights, most particularly Magna Carta, were not grants from the King, but recognition's by the King of rights that have been reserved or that appertained unto us by common law and immemorial custom."
(Sir Robert Howard, a member of the Committee's which drafted the Bill of Rights).
Confirmatio cartarum [25 Edw. I][29]
"No Freeman shall be taken, or imprisoned, or be disseised of his Freehold, or Liberties, or free Customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or any otherwise destroyed; nor will we pass upon him, nor condemn him, but by lawful Judgment of his Peers, or by the Law of the Land."
Note: in the 1354 version, "by the law of the land" was changed to "by due process of law."
We will sell to no man, we will not deny or defer to any man either Justice or Right.
The National Parking Adjudication Service in the UK is not a court of Law within the meaning of Article 234 EC, therefore its decision will be in contravention of Article 6 of The European Convention on Human Rights.
It is unlawful for a public authority to act in a way which is incompatible with a Convention right.
The Claim of Rights 1628 amplified and confirmed by the Declaration and Bill of Rights of 1688/9 ensures that no law may be suspended or dispensed with unless with consent of Parliament. (given in judgement by Lord Bingham, House of Lords: Diane Pretty, Motor Neurone disease case, Nov. 2001) Which in turn means that suspension or dispensing of law can only be made by the express agreement of Parliament.
In other words by Statute, ensuring ‘The Rule Of Law’ as the only Constitutional means of governance.
(Hansard, 21 July 1993 column 352), the Speaker of the House of Commons issued a reminder to the courts: 'There has of course been no amendment to the Bill of Rights…the house is entitled to expect that the Bill of Rights will be fully respected by all those appearing before the courts.'
Monday, September 12, 2005
Further Questions as National Parking Adjudicator (NPAS) Crisis Deepens
For the attention of:
Andrew Barfoot
Tribunal Manager
National Parking Adjudication Service
6th FloorBarlow House
Minshull Street
Manchester
M1 3DZ
Dear Mr. Barfoot,
Further to our telephone call of 10.15am Monday 12th September 2005 I would like clarification of the legal status of NPAS.
You advise that NPAS is a tribunal and not a court of law.
I have attached a link here to a video clip from the NPAS website.
It begins, "My name is Sian Cole and I am an adjudicator."
Ms Cole then proceeds to make a statement,
" This is in fact a Court of Law."
1. Can you please confirm, as a matter of urgency, that the statement on your website misrepresents NPAS' legal status and will be removed immediately?
2. Can you advise as to how many hits the NPAS website has had since its creation and if there is a record of the number of times the misleading video clip has been accessed? Can you also detail how you intend to clarify the NPAS position for those who have been misled
3. Can you clarify the precise legal status of NPAS?
4. Can you please define NPAS' definition of 'independent?' I was advised by your enquiry handler that NPAS is completely independent of both parties involved in arbitration.
5. Can you please confirm how NPAS is funded and advise as to where this is clearly displayed on the NPAS website?
6. Can you please advise where to access NPAS accounts and financial records and a breakdown of contributions to NPAS by Local Authority member?
Yours sincerely,
Neil Herron
12 Frederick Street
Sunderland
SR1 1NA
Andrew Barfoot
Tribunal Manager
National Parking Adjudication Service
6th FloorBarlow House
Minshull Street
Manchester
M1 3DZ
Dear Mr. Barfoot,
Further to our telephone call of 10.15am Monday 12th September 2005 I would like clarification of the legal status of NPAS.
You advise that NPAS is a tribunal and not a court of law.
I have attached a link here to a video clip from the NPAS website.
It begins, "My name is Sian Cole and I am an adjudicator."
Ms Cole then proceeds to make a statement,
" This is in fact a Court of Law."
1. Can you please confirm, as a matter of urgency, that the statement on your website misrepresents NPAS' legal status and will be removed immediately?
2. Can you advise as to how many hits the NPAS website has had since its creation and if there is a record of the number of times the misleading video clip has been accessed? Can you also detail how you intend to clarify the NPAS position for those who have been misled
3. Can you clarify the precise legal status of NPAS?
4. Can you please define NPAS' definition of 'independent?' I was advised by your enquiry handler that NPAS is completely independent of both parties involved in arbitration.
5. Can you please confirm how NPAS is funded and advise as to where this is clearly displayed on the NPAS website?
6. Can you please advise where to access NPAS accounts and financial records and a breakdown of contributions to NPAS by Local Authority member?
Yours sincerely,
Neil Herron
12 Frederick Street
Sunderland
SR1 1NA
No justice in parking 'court'
Christopher Booker's notebook
Sunday Telegraph (Filed: 11/09/2005)
No justice in parking 'court'
No justice in parking 'court'
Neil Herron is the campaigner who has shown that councils are illegally raising millions of pounds from motorists by failing to follow the correct procedures in setting up "decriminalised" parking regimes under the 1991 Road Traffic Act. When his own council, Sunderland, grudgingly admitted that it had continued to impose fines even after being formally told these were illegal, Mr Herron sought action.
Who better to ensure that the law was being observed, he thought, than the National Parking Adjudication Service (NPAS). But when he telephoned them he was puzzled to find that he was getting nowhere (not least when, thanks to an NPAS official failing to close off his mobile phone, Mr Herron overheard himself being described as "mad" - for which he later received an apology).
Mr Herron therefore investigated NPAS further. Although it presents itself as a wholly "independent" body, it turns out to be financed by 60p on every parking ticket issued by councils operating "decriminalised" regimes.
On its website, the NPAS sternly instructs the public to tell the truth because it is a "court of law". When challenged as to why it seems to act as judge and jury in its own interest, however, it cheerfully insists that it is "not a court of law" after all.
Thus, when local authorities are found to be in breach of the law on parking penalties, the public's only recourse is to a "court of law" which is not a court of law; which represents the very people who are breaking the law in the first place; and which is funded by money some of which itself has been raised illegally.
Sunday Telegraph (Filed: 11/09/2005)
No justice in parking 'court'
No justice in parking 'court'
Neil Herron is the campaigner who has shown that councils are illegally raising millions of pounds from motorists by failing to follow the correct procedures in setting up "decriminalised" parking regimes under the 1991 Road Traffic Act. When his own council, Sunderland, grudgingly admitted that it had continued to impose fines even after being formally told these were illegal, Mr Herron sought action.
Who better to ensure that the law was being observed, he thought, than the National Parking Adjudication Service (NPAS). But when he telephoned them he was puzzled to find that he was getting nowhere (not least when, thanks to an NPAS official failing to close off his mobile phone, Mr Herron overheard himself being described as "mad" - for which he later received an apology).
Mr Herron therefore investigated NPAS further. Although it presents itself as a wholly "independent" body, it turns out to be financed by 60p on every parking ticket issued by councils operating "decriminalised" regimes.
On its website, the NPAS sternly instructs the public to tell the truth because it is a "court of law". When challenged as to why it seems to act as judge and jury in its own interest, however, it cheerfully insists that it is "not a court of law" after all.
Thus, when local authorities are found to be in breach of the law on parking penalties, the public's only recourse is to a "court of law" which is not a court of law; which represents the very people who are breaking the law in the first place; and which is funded by money some of which itself has been raised illegally.
The Clock is Ticking Sunderland...why so long?
It is now over ten days since the following press request went in to Sunderland City Council
Questions:
1. Can the Council confirm that on or around November 2003 Parking Services / NCP / Sunderland Council became aware that they had been issuing tickets to Disabled Motorists in Loading Bays unlawfully?
2. How was it brought to your attention?
3. Why did you not immediately make this public and offer to refund the money?
4. Did Sunderland Council issue a notice to NCP to desist from issuing further tickets as they had no lawful authority to do so
If so, who issued the notice and to whom and the date it was issued?
5. Can you confirm the number of tickets that had been unlawfully issued by Parking Attendants (to disabled badge holders in loading bays) prior to you becoming aware that they had been issued unlawfully and the number that have been issued since all parties became aware? Can you also confirm the Offence Code?
Why is it taking so long?
Why is there still no explanation as to why in 2003 was the money unlawfully taken not refunded immediately?
There is a rumour circulating that Sunderland City Council are about to hold their hands up to the whole parking regime being unlawful...we wait with bated breath.
Questions:
1. Can the Council confirm that on or around November 2003 Parking Services / NCP / Sunderland Council became aware that they had been issuing tickets to Disabled Motorists in Loading Bays unlawfully?
2. How was it brought to your attention?
3. Why did you not immediately make this public and offer to refund the money?
4. Did Sunderland Council issue a notice to NCP to desist from issuing further tickets as they had no lawful authority to do so
If so, who issued the notice and to whom and the date it was issued?
5. Can you confirm the number of tickets that had been unlawfully issued by Parking Attendants (to disabled badge holders in loading bays) prior to you becoming aware that they had been issued unlawfully and the number that have been issued since all parties became aware? Can you also confirm the Offence Code?
Why is it taking so long?
Why is there still no explanation as to why in 2003 was the money unlawfully taken not refunded immediately?
There is a rumour circulating that Sunderland City Council are about to hold their hands up to the whole parking regime being unlawful...we wait with bated breath.
Saturday, September 10, 2005
Victory...HM Customs and Excise back down after Bill of Rights threat
Looks like the threat of Lord Justice Laws Judgment had forced HM Customs and Excise to drop an action.
We (BWMA) have today received the following email from LeslieHatcher:
"I refer you to our conversation the other evening about my appeal against my VAT surcharge of £445. Two days ago I received a letter from HM Revenue and Customs stating that I had no case to answer and would I withdraw my appeal.
Instead of doing that I wrote another letter restating my case but in even stronger terms quoting Hierarchy of Actsvand no appeals so far etc. "
This morning I have received my seventh letter from them stating that they are now going to withdraw the surcharge.
In other words I have won ... It is all down to you and the extremely clever Mr de Crittenden. I have telephoned Patience Wheatcroft of the Times. I could not speak to her but I did speak to one of the other business editors who was absolutely fascinated and who understood the full significance of this on the spot. I am about to be phoned back by one of her team who want to take this further.I
was ridiculed by my associates here when I set out on this course of action who said that I was being stupid. They are changing their views now I think.
I think that this is significant because it extends your argument beyond parking problems and magnifies the significance of the 1689 Act tremendously. The Inland Revenue would never back down if they were sure of their ground and this is an admission that they are far from sure. I think that this news needs to bespread around and more people should take up the cause ...
I hope that my little effort is of help to you all".
We (BWMA) have today received the following email from LeslieHatcher:
"I refer you to our conversation the other evening about my appeal against my VAT surcharge of £445. Two days ago I received a letter from HM Revenue and Customs stating that I had no case to answer and would I withdraw my appeal.
Instead of doing that I wrote another letter restating my case but in even stronger terms quoting Hierarchy of Actsvand no appeals so far etc. "
This morning I have received my seventh letter from them stating that they are now going to withdraw the surcharge.
In other words I have won ... It is all down to you and the extremely clever Mr de Crittenden. I have telephoned Patience Wheatcroft of the Times. I could not speak to her but I did speak to one of the other business editors who was absolutely fascinated and who understood the full significance of this on the spot. I am about to be phoned back by one of her team who want to take this further.I
was ridiculed by my associates here when I set out on this course of action who said that I was being stupid. They are changing their views now I think.
I think that this is significant because it extends your argument beyond parking problems and magnifies the significance of the 1689 Act tremendously. The Inland Revenue would never back down if they were sure of their ground and this is an admission that they are far from sure. I think that this news needs to bespread around and more people should take up the cause ...
I hope that my little effort is of help to you all".
Friday, September 09, 2005
Robin Rocky De Crittenden dying to get in the ring
this time with Sandwell Council
9th September, 2005
Mr Nigel Summers,
CEO.,
Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council,
by e-mail only:-
nigel_summers@sandwell.gov.uk West Bromwich.
B70 8RU.
Dear Mr Summers,
Re: Penalty Charge Number – SD14085376
I refer to all previous correspondence with you and with your officers; to public statements made during the past 72 hours by Cllr Mahmood Hussain and to a Public Challenge that I have issued to your Council, via BBC West Midlands (the text of which challenge I have copied to you by e-mail).
You will know that in response to my own points of legal argument, Mr Hussain has elected to re-offer the ‘rebuttal’ that the provisions of the Declaration & Bill of Rights are not violated by the provisions of the RTA 1991, because the provisions of the D & B of Rights were and are concerned only with Criminal matters.
This is clearly not the case and it is for this reason that I have issued my challenge to a public debate. Mr Hussain has already demonstrated his personal willingness to issue public statements, and I am suggesting no more than that the public statements of both sides should now be confirmed in a public place, and then debated to the satisfaction of Sandwell taxpayers, who could well be invited to decide whether or not their money is to be spent in entering into a full legal contest with me.
Pending your Council’s decision as to whether or not my challenge should be accepted, there are matters which result from the statements of Cllr Hussain - and which require clarification - before I move on to further steps of my own.
In brief, Cllr Hussain has stated on behalf of your Council, and by public statements which are now firmly on the record, that it is the present intention of your Council to return to Court for an Order that will permit the Council to instruct Bailiffs to proceed against me: I have to confess that I am puzzled by these statements.
Is it correct to say that the Northampton Court has previously declined to register the Charge that Sandwell submitted on a previous occasion – and that Sandwell now has need to present a fresh application to the Northampton Court ?
OR is it true to say that your Council is now intent upon making an approach of some kind to some other Court?
And is it true to say that your present intentions will continue to deprive me of all ability to make formal representations of my own to the Northampton Court, or to some other Court?
Your prompt advice in this matter will be appreciated, so that I can make an accurate judgment as to whether or not I should now join Sandwell as a defendant to the Claim that it is being prepared for the attention of the Administrative Court.
Finally, it may be helpful for me to know why it that Sandwell is only now declaring an intention to return to Court - bearing in mind that full opportunity has existed for many months, all prior to my own public statements of this present week?
I look forward to the benefit of your detailed response, at an early time: In the meantime, I must confirm my earlier advice that you, together with all officials; representatives; servants and agents of the Sandwell Council are denied all and any right of peaceful entry at my home.
Thank you for your attention to this matter,
Yours faithfully,
Robin de Crittenden.
9th September, 2005
Mr Nigel Summers,
CEO.,
Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council,
by e-mail only:-
nigel_summers@sandwell.gov.uk West Bromwich.
B70 8RU.
Dear Mr Summers,
Re: Penalty Charge Number – SD14085376
I refer to all previous correspondence with you and with your officers; to public statements made during the past 72 hours by Cllr Mahmood Hussain and to a Public Challenge that I have issued to your Council, via BBC West Midlands (the text of which challenge I have copied to you by e-mail).
You will know that in response to my own points of legal argument, Mr Hussain has elected to re-offer the ‘rebuttal’ that the provisions of the Declaration & Bill of Rights are not violated by the provisions of the RTA 1991, because the provisions of the D & B of Rights were and are concerned only with Criminal matters.
This is clearly not the case and it is for this reason that I have issued my challenge to a public debate. Mr Hussain has already demonstrated his personal willingness to issue public statements, and I am suggesting no more than that the public statements of both sides should now be confirmed in a public place, and then debated to the satisfaction of Sandwell taxpayers, who could well be invited to decide whether or not their money is to be spent in entering into a full legal contest with me.
Pending your Council’s decision as to whether or not my challenge should be accepted, there are matters which result from the statements of Cllr Hussain - and which require clarification - before I move on to further steps of my own.
In brief, Cllr Hussain has stated on behalf of your Council, and by public statements which are now firmly on the record, that it is the present intention of your Council to return to Court for an Order that will permit the Council to instruct Bailiffs to proceed against me: I have to confess that I am puzzled by these statements.
Is it correct to say that the Northampton Court has previously declined to register the Charge that Sandwell submitted on a previous occasion – and that Sandwell now has need to present a fresh application to the Northampton Court ?
OR is it true to say that your Council is now intent upon making an approach of some kind to some other Court?
And is it true to say that your present intentions will continue to deprive me of all ability to make formal representations of my own to the Northampton Court, or to some other Court?
Your prompt advice in this matter will be appreciated, so that I can make an accurate judgment as to whether or not I should now join Sandwell as a defendant to the Claim that it is being prepared for the attention of the Administrative Court.
Finally, it may be helpful for me to know why it that Sandwell is only now declaring an intention to return to Court - bearing in mind that full opportunity has existed for many months, all prior to my own public statements of this present week?
I look forward to the benefit of your detailed response, at an early time: In the meantime, I must confirm my earlier advice that you, together with all officials; representatives; servants and agents of the Sandwell Council are denied all and any right of peaceful entry at my home.
Thank you for your attention to this matter,
Yours faithfully,
Robin de Crittenden.
Rocky De Crittenden throws down the gauntlet
Playing on the hour every hour is the following challenge...to the background music of Survivor's 'Eye of the Tiger' from the Rocky films... this challenge is being read by Robin 'Rocky' De Crittenden
RADIO CHALLENGE TO SANDWELL MBC.
9th September, 2005
Via BBC Radio Midlands (Adrian Goldberge Breakfast Show)
___________________________________________________
STATEMENT AS FOLLOWS:
"Because I am quite sure that the parking-ticket policy of Sandwell breaches Our Most
Basic Law, as provided by the Declaration & Bill of Rights –
And because I can see for myself that the Sandwell Councillors & Officers know little or nothing about the Declaration & Bill of Rights -
And because I would like the People of Sandwell to be protected against the financial costs that will be ordered against their Council – and therefore against them - when the Sandwell Parking Policy is finally sent to the House of Lords for a full legal resolution –
I WISH TO CHALLENGE THE SANDWELL COUNCILLORS & OFFICERS
TO A FULL AND PUBLIC DEBATE IN THE PRESENCE OF THE PEOPLE OF
SANDWELL –
AND AT ANY PUBLIC PLACE THAT MAY BE CHOSEN BY THE SANDWELL
COUNCILLORS & OFFICERS FOR THEIR OWN CONVENIENCE –
FOR THE SIMPLE PURPOSE OF MAKING A FULL ATTEMPT TO RESOLVE THE LEGAL DISPUTE BETWEEN THE SANDWELL COUNCIL AND MYSELF –
AND FOR THE FURTHER PURPOSE OF PROVIDING THE PEOPLE OF SANDWELL WITH FULL OPPORTUNITY TO DECIDE FOR THEMSELVES WHETHER OR NOT THEY ARE BEING LAWFULLY & REASONABLY SERVED BY THE PEOPLE WHO ARE SPENDING THEIR MONEY AND CLAIMING TO ACT IN THEIR NAME –"
Robin de Crittenden.
RADIO CHALLENGE TO SANDWELL MBC.
9th September, 2005
Via BBC Radio Midlands (Adrian Goldberge Breakfast Show)
___________________________________________________
STATEMENT AS FOLLOWS:
"Because I am quite sure that the parking-ticket policy of Sandwell breaches Our Most
Basic Law, as provided by the Declaration & Bill of Rights –
And because I can see for myself that the Sandwell Councillors & Officers know little or nothing about the Declaration & Bill of Rights -
And because I would like the People of Sandwell to be protected against the financial costs that will be ordered against their Council – and therefore against them - when the Sandwell Parking Policy is finally sent to the House of Lords for a full legal resolution –
I WISH TO CHALLENGE THE SANDWELL COUNCILLORS & OFFICERS
TO A FULL AND PUBLIC DEBATE IN THE PRESENCE OF THE PEOPLE OF
SANDWELL –
AND AT ANY PUBLIC PLACE THAT MAY BE CHOSEN BY THE SANDWELL
COUNCILLORS & OFFICERS FOR THEIR OWN CONVENIENCE –
FOR THE SIMPLE PURPOSE OF MAKING A FULL ATTEMPT TO RESOLVE THE LEGAL DISPUTE BETWEEN THE SANDWELL COUNCIL AND MYSELF –
AND FOR THE FURTHER PURPOSE OF PROVIDING THE PEOPLE OF SANDWELL WITH FULL OPPORTUNITY TO DECIDE FOR THEMSELVES WHETHER OR NOT THEY ARE BEING LAWFULLY & REASONABLY SERVED BY THE PEOPLE WHO ARE SPENDING THEIR MONEY AND CLAIMING TO ACT IN THEIR NAME –"
Robin de Crittenden.
Give 'em a pint and they'll take a kilometre
Give 'em a pint and they'll take a kilometre
The Sun, Friday September 2, 2005
RICHARD LITTLEJOHN
NOT content with hounding greengrocer Steve Thoburn in to an earlygrave for the heinous offence of selling fruit and veg in weights his customers could understand, the Metric Mafia are stepping up their campaign to force Britain to abandon imperial measures for ever.
Brussels is renewing its pressure on the Government to set a date for the abolition of miles, yards, feet, inches and pints.
Ministers are already going public with "over my dead body" bravado. Don't be fooled. They'll give in eventually. They always do.
Even if they don't, the Men In Wigs will over-rule them.
The plain fact is that, with the exception of miles and pints, most of our historic units of measurement have already gone the way of all flesh.
Every once in a while, someone makes a stand. But as in the case of the unfortunate Steve Thoburn they get ground down.
I seem to remember around the time Mr Thoburn was prosecuted for selling bananas in pounds and ounces, Tesco made a great song and dance about never submitting to the Brussels bullies and pledging to sell their produce in pounds and ounces for as long as their customers wanted.
That lasted about five minutes. Having secured acres of free publicity, Tesco quietly let it drop.
Try buying a pound of mince at your local Tesco these days. It's all kilograms or percentages thereof.
Maybe they figured that having had their 400 grams of flesh it wasn't worth the aggravation to keep it going, even though a company the size of Tesco could well have afforded a few hundred quid in fines every month.
That's what the Metric Mafia rely on. They know they can smash the Steve Thoburns of this world while the giant corporations will go along with anything provided the profits keep flowing.
What the hell does Tesco care which units of measurement it uses, just so long as the margin's right?
I can understand why manufacturing companies which trade internationally might favour a standardised system. They don't want to be pitching for a contract in fractions of an inch if the customer's plans have been drawn up in Centigrade, or whatever.
Fair enough.
But what if, as in the case of Steve Thoburn, the customers are largely ladies who have been brought up using pounds and ounces?
Why should they be expected to deal in a system with which they are unfamiliar?
The whole point of weights and measures legislation is to ensure that the customer doesn't get short-changed.
The history of metrication mirrors that of decimalisation. The customer always gets ripped off. A few grams get shaved off here, a few pence added there.
That's what's happened across Europe in the case of the euro. And it's one of the main reasons the Italians want their lira back. Prices have gone through the roof since the changeover.
The purpose of measurement is to clarify, to stop anyone being cheated, not to confuse. But that isn't how the bureaucratic mind works.
Everything must comply, whether or not it is to the advantage of the consumer.
It may well be that in the fullness of time, the universal adoption of the metric system is inevitable -although the USA, the most successful trading nation on earth, manages to rub along quite nicely using imperial measurements.
One of the many joys for an old fart like me visiting America is knowing how much everything weighs and how hot it is.
I get pounds and ounces. I understand Fahrenheit. And there are millions like me.
So why can't the two systems operate side by side until there's no one left who still thinks in old money?
Isn't that the whole point of consumer choice? Why the hell should using measurements which people can understand be a criminal offence?
A criminal offence, for goodness sake, to be punished to the fullest extent of the law?
You never get a Steve Thoburn being given the benefit of the doubt, or being threatened with an Asbo.
All resistance must be crushed. You wouldn't know it, but the official measurement of distance in Britain is still miles, yards and feet.
That doesn't stop local councils sticking up signposts in metres. Technically, the last time I looked, they were in breach of the law. But the Town Hall Metric Mafia are hardly going to prosecute themselves, are they?
Oh, no, they reserve their wrath for recalcitrant greengrocers selling their "potatoe's" and "apple's" in "pound's" and "ounce's"(copyright: K Waterhouse).
None of this is really about standardisation or "bringing us into line with Europe". As if they really give a damn.
Like so much else in Blair's Britain, from speed cameras to nicking radio hams for alleged anti-Muslim sentiment, it's about showing us who's boss.
Throwing their metric weight around enables them to indulge their punishment fantasies while at the same time posing as modern, reasonable and progressive.
What could be more agreeable than using a superior Continental system of measurement?
Only a Little Englander could possibly object. How long before opposition to compulsory metrication is officially declared a racist hate crime?
In their zeal to crush all trace of this country's historic system of measurements, the bureaucrats are aided and abetted by the biggest bureaucracy of all -the British Broadcasting Corporation.
The BBC gives the impression of taking its editorial line direct from Brussels.
While even Channel 4 gives Test match viewers a choice of Fahrenheit/Centigrade when forecasting the weather for that day's play, the Beeb sticks resolutely to new money.
If you don't instantly understand what 18C is -tough. Work it out for yourself and don't forget to carry an umbrella.
Watch any news bulletin and you'll see BBC reporters banging on about, for instance, how many metres away something happened.
Even on documentaries they convert nautical miles and knots into metric.
Perhaps the most ludicrous example came this week as Hurricane Katrina approached America's Gulf coast.
As the US authorities and the national hurricane centre spoke about how many miles an hour Katrina was travelling, the BBC insisted on telling us that she was expected to hit land at speeds of "up to 280 kilometres an hour".
I believe it's known as a Mission To Explain.
How long before they start sending out the licence fee in euros?
The Sun, Friday September 2, 2005
RICHARD LITTLEJOHN
NOT content with hounding greengrocer Steve Thoburn in to an earlygrave for the heinous offence of selling fruit and veg in weights his customers could understand, the Metric Mafia are stepping up their campaign to force Britain to abandon imperial measures for ever.
Brussels is renewing its pressure on the Government to set a date for the abolition of miles, yards, feet, inches and pints.
Ministers are already going public with "over my dead body" bravado. Don't be fooled. They'll give in eventually. They always do.
Even if they don't, the Men In Wigs will over-rule them.
The plain fact is that, with the exception of miles and pints, most of our historic units of measurement have already gone the way of all flesh.
Every once in a while, someone makes a stand. But as in the case of the unfortunate Steve Thoburn they get ground down.
I seem to remember around the time Mr Thoburn was prosecuted for selling bananas in pounds and ounces, Tesco made a great song and dance about never submitting to the Brussels bullies and pledging to sell their produce in pounds and ounces for as long as their customers wanted.
That lasted about five minutes. Having secured acres of free publicity, Tesco quietly let it drop.
Try buying a pound of mince at your local Tesco these days. It's all kilograms or percentages thereof.
Maybe they figured that having had their 400 grams of flesh it wasn't worth the aggravation to keep it going, even though a company the size of Tesco could well have afforded a few hundred quid in fines every month.
That's what the Metric Mafia rely on. They know they can smash the Steve Thoburns of this world while the giant corporations will go along with anything provided the profits keep flowing.
What the hell does Tesco care which units of measurement it uses, just so long as the margin's right?
I can understand why manufacturing companies which trade internationally might favour a standardised system. They don't want to be pitching for a contract in fractions of an inch if the customer's plans have been drawn up in Centigrade, or whatever.
Fair enough.
But what if, as in the case of Steve Thoburn, the customers are largely ladies who have been brought up using pounds and ounces?
Why should they be expected to deal in a system with which they are unfamiliar?
The whole point of weights and measures legislation is to ensure that the customer doesn't get short-changed.
The history of metrication mirrors that of decimalisation. The customer always gets ripped off. A few grams get shaved off here, a few pence added there.
That's what's happened across Europe in the case of the euro. And it's one of the main reasons the Italians want their lira back. Prices have gone through the roof since the changeover.
The purpose of measurement is to clarify, to stop anyone being cheated, not to confuse. But that isn't how the bureaucratic mind works.
Everything must comply, whether or not it is to the advantage of the consumer.
It may well be that in the fullness of time, the universal adoption of the metric system is inevitable -although the USA, the most successful trading nation on earth, manages to rub along quite nicely using imperial measurements.
One of the many joys for an old fart like me visiting America is knowing how much everything weighs and how hot it is.
I get pounds and ounces. I understand Fahrenheit. And there are millions like me.
So why can't the two systems operate side by side until there's no one left who still thinks in old money?
Isn't that the whole point of consumer choice? Why the hell should using measurements which people can understand be a criminal offence?
A criminal offence, for goodness sake, to be punished to the fullest extent of the law?
You never get a Steve Thoburn being given the benefit of the doubt, or being threatened with an Asbo.
All resistance must be crushed. You wouldn't know it, but the official measurement of distance in Britain is still miles, yards and feet.
That doesn't stop local councils sticking up signposts in metres. Technically, the last time I looked, they were in breach of the law. But the Town Hall Metric Mafia are hardly going to prosecute themselves, are they?
Oh, no, they reserve their wrath for recalcitrant greengrocers selling their "potatoe's" and "apple's" in "pound's" and "ounce's"(copyright: K Waterhouse).
None of this is really about standardisation or "bringing us into line with Europe". As if they really give a damn.
Like so much else in Blair's Britain, from speed cameras to nicking radio hams for alleged anti-Muslim sentiment, it's about showing us who's boss.
Throwing their metric weight around enables them to indulge their punishment fantasies while at the same time posing as modern, reasonable and progressive.
What could be more agreeable than using a superior Continental system of measurement?
Only a Little Englander could possibly object. How long before opposition to compulsory metrication is officially declared a racist hate crime?
In their zeal to crush all trace of this country's historic system of measurements, the bureaucrats are aided and abetted by the biggest bureaucracy of all -the British Broadcasting Corporation.
The BBC gives the impression of taking its editorial line direct from Brussels.
While even Channel 4 gives Test match viewers a choice of Fahrenheit/Centigrade when forecasting the weather for that day's play, the Beeb sticks resolutely to new money.
If you don't instantly understand what 18C is -tough. Work it out for yourself and don't forget to carry an umbrella.
Watch any news bulletin and you'll see BBC reporters banging on about, for instance, how many metres away something happened.
Even on documentaries they convert nautical miles and knots into metric.
Perhaps the most ludicrous example came this week as Hurricane Katrina approached America's Gulf coast.
As the US authorities and the national hurricane centre spoke about how many miles an hour Katrina was travelling, the BBC insisted on telling us that she was expected to hit land at speeds of "up to 280 kilometres an hour".
I believe it's known as a Mission To Explain.
How long before they start sending out the licence fee in euros?
Worcester City Council now facing NPAS Challenge
9th September, 2005.
Miss Patricia Curtin,
Appeals Coordinator,
National Parking
Adjudication Service,
Level 6, By e-mail:
Barlow House, npas@parking-appeals.gov.uk
Minshull Street,
MANCHESTER.
M1 3DZ.
Dear Miss Curtin,
Re: Case Number WC49 – de Crittenden –v- Worcester City Council
Penalty Charge Notice WC00072143 – 26th June, 2003 –
I refer to your letter dated 8th September, and to our telephone conversation this morning; with additional reference to a copy e-mail that I sent on to your office just after our conversation of today.
The copy e-mail serves to advise that Mr Graham Vass at Worcester City Council is now in the process of confirming that the evidence-pack being prepared for your tribunal by his Council will include all of the correspondence that I have conducted with his Council, and will also include a copy of the Declaration of Rights that was provided by me on 7th September, 2004.
Whilst dealing with the subject of evidence, I confirm your agreement of today that when I have received my own copy of the evidence-pack provided by the Worcester Council, I will be provided with full opportunity to provide all/any missing evidence and such further evidence as may be required for all purposes of addressing the content of the pack provided by the Council - notwithstanding the closing date of 20th September that is now appointed for all purposes of evidence-submission.
I do not wish or intend to be abrasive in my conduct towards NPAS, but I must confirm my requirement that I be provided with full opportunity to record the entire process of the intended tribunal hearing, for all purposes of my intended claim for Judicial Review of the legality that is being claimed for the entirety of the process.
It must be clearly recorded by NPAS that I am submitting myself to the tribunal process without prejudice of any kind whatsoever to the Common-law safeguards that belong to me and that are fully recognized by the Declaration of Rights).
You will understand that I wish to present the Administrative Court with the entirety of all available evidence of the breaches to law that are now occurring and you will further understand that I have no intention of being required to pay for any certified transcript of the tribunal proceedings.
It has to be said that if any appointed Adjudicator intends to refuse me the full ability to record the proceedings of his/her tribunal, then I must ask for such refusal to be issued in writing and well before any date appointed for any such tribunal hearing: At this stage, I must advise that it will be my intention to call for Judicial Review of any refusal of recording ability, before I enter into any appearance before any tribunal.
On this same subject, I have mentioned to you the claims that are currently appearing on your web-site regarding the status of your tribunals as Courts of Law – and I have further mentioned to you that in consequence of such claims I have directed a full enquiry to the European Court of Human Rights, which has responsibility for ensuring that Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights is maintained by the Government of the UK.
In view of your own assertions to me this morning regarding the status of your Service & Tribunals, I must refer you to the content of a letter issued on 14th June, 2005, by a Mr Paul Griffiths (who then described himself as Service Development Officer for NPAS).
This letter was sent by NPAS to a Mr Neil Herron at 12, Frederick Street, Sunderland and now serves to confirm that the National Parking Adjudication Service is NOT a Court of Law and that Adjudicators appointed by NPAS do NOT hold the status of High Court Judges.
Without wishing to be offensive, it seems to me that it is entirely necessary for NPAS to cause some immediate correction to the misleading information on the NPAS website, and that it is further necessary for all persons on the staff of NPAS to be correctly informed as to the true status of NPAS.
Please be assured that when I have received response from the European Court and/or the evidence-pack from the Worcester City Council, I will write to you again.
In the meantime, you may wish to know that I intend to produce a Judgment of Laws LJ (Case No CO/3639/2001 etc – handed down on 18th February, 2002), in further evidence that the RTA 1991 is no more than an unlawful attempt at an enactment of law: An attempt, moreover, that is most specifically prohibited both by the terms of Magna Carta (1225) & by the Declaration of Rights (1688/89).
I look forward to receiving your specific confirmation that I will have full opportunity to record the entirety of the tribunal hearing now intended, and I shall be glad to have your confirmation that this present letter has been safely received by you.
Thank you very much for your time on the telephone today andyou’re your ongoing attention to these various matters,
Yours faithfully,
Robin de Crittenden.
Miss Patricia Curtin,
Appeals Coordinator,
National Parking
Adjudication Service,
Level 6, By e-mail:
Barlow House, npas@parking-appeals.gov.uk
Minshull Street,
MANCHESTER.
M1 3DZ.
Dear Miss Curtin,
Re: Case Number WC49 – de Crittenden –v- Worcester City Council
Penalty Charge Notice WC00072143 – 26th June, 2003 –
I refer to your letter dated 8th September, and to our telephone conversation this morning; with additional reference to a copy e-mail that I sent on to your office just after our conversation of today.
The copy e-mail serves to advise that Mr Graham Vass at Worcester City Council is now in the process of confirming that the evidence-pack being prepared for your tribunal by his Council will include all of the correspondence that I have conducted with his Council, and will also include a copy of the Declaration of Rights that was provided by me on 7th September, 2004.
Whilst dealing with the subject of evidence, I confirm your agreement of today that when I have received my own copy of the evidence-pack provided by the Worcester Council, I will be provided with full opportunity to provide all/any missing evidence and such further evidence as may be required for all purposes of addressing the content of the pack provided by the Council - notwithstanding the closing date of 20th September that is now appointed for all purposes of evidence-submission.
I do not wish or intend to be abrasive in my conduct towards NPAS, but I must confirm my requirement that I be provided with full opportunity to record the entire process of the intended tribunal hearing, for all purposes of my intended claim for Judicial Review of the legality that is being claimed for the entirety of the process.
It must be clearly recorded by NPAS that I am submitting myself to the tribunal process without prejudice of any kind whatsoever to the Common-law safeguards that belong to me and that are fully recognized by the Declaration of Rights).
You will understand that I wish to present the Administrative Court with the entirety of all available evidence of the breaches to law that are now occurring and you will further understand that I have no intention of being required to pay for any certified transcript of the tribunal proceedings.
It has to be said that if any appointed Adjudicator intends to refuse me the full ability to record the proceedings of his/her tribunal, then I must ask for such refusal to be issued in writing and well before any date appointed for any such tribunal hearing: At this stage, I must advise that it will be my intention to call for Judicial Review of any refusal of recording ability, before I enter into any appearance before any tribunal.
On this same subject, I have mentioned to you the claims that are currently appearing on your web-site regarding the status of your tribunals as Courts of Law – and I have further mentioned to you that in consequence of such claims I have directed a full enquiry to the European Court of Human Rights, which has responsibility for ensuring that Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights is maintained by the Government of the UK.
In view of your own assertions to me this morning regarding the status of your Service & Tribunals, I must refer you to the content of a letter issued on 14th June, 2005, by a Mr Paul Griffiths (who then described himself as Service Development Officer for NPAS).
This letter was sent by NPAS to a Mr Neil Herron at 12, Frederick Street, Sunderland and now serves to confirm that the National Parking Adjudication Service is NOT a Court of Law and that Adjudicators appointed by NPAS do NOT hold the status of High Court Judges.
Without wishing to be offensive, it seems to me that it is entirely necessary for NPAS to cause some immediate correction to the misleading information on the NPAS website, and that it is further necessary for all persons on the staff of NPAS to be correctly informed as to the true status of NPAS.
Please be assured that when I have received response from the European Court and/or the evidence-pack from the Worcester City Council, I will write to you again.
In the meantime, you may wish to know that I intend to produce a Judgment of Laws LJ (Case No CO/3639/2001 etc – handed down on 18th February, 2002), in further evidence that the RTA 1991 is no more than an unlawful attempt at an enactment of law: An attempt, moreover, that is most specifically prohibited both by the terms of Magna Carta (1225) & by the Declaration of Rights (1688/89).
I look forward to receiving your specific confirmation that I will have full opportunity to record the entirety of the tribunal hearing now intended, and I shall be glad to have your confirmation that this present letter has been safely received by you.
Thank you very much for your time on the telephone today andyou’re your ongoing attention to these various matters,
Yours faithfully,
Robin de Crittenden.
Thursday, September 08, 2005
Legal papers served on Sunderland Council
8th September, 2005.
By First Class Mail Recorded Delivery
Mr G Fitzgerald,
The Chief Executive,
City of Sunderland,
The Civic Centre,
Burdon Road,
SUNDERLAND.
SR2 7DN
Advance Copy by e-mail:- alyson.cooper@sunderland.gov.uk
Dear Mr Fitzgerald,
Re: Penalty Charge Notice SX07015381 – Notice of Intent - Judicial Review
I refer to all previous correspondence in this matter, and must advise that since your Council has failed to process this Penalty Notice in any prompt and lawful manner, &/or give effect to any complete withdrawal of this Notice, it is my intention to proceed to Judicial Review, naming your Council as a defendant: If your Council has any intention of proposing some alternative method of settling this matter, then I must ask you to make such proposals known to me during the course of the next 14 days.
The intended ‘lead case’ in my application for Judicial Review will cite the City of Worcester and the anticipated decision of an NPAS Adjudicator that will be issued, following a Tribunal Hearing that is due to take place in Worcester before the end of October, 2005. NPAS is advised of my intention to attend at this particular hearing and is further advised of my intention to take a full recording of all proceedings, for the benefit of the Administrative Court.
When the tribunal decision is published in the Worcester Case, my consolidated application to the Administrative Court can be finalized and will be filed.
In the meantime, I must ask you to confirm in writing whether or not you are satisfied that your Council has properly published all required notices &/or traffic orders in accordance with the requirement of the RTA 1991 and in respect of the area of Sunderland that is involved with Parking Charge Notice SX07015381. I am aware of the fact that Sunderland has failed to publish the required notices/orders in respect of other areas of the town and now provide you with full opportunity to confirm that your house is in good technical order, before the Administrative Court is required to pass judgment on the part that your Council has played/is continuing to play in a wilful breach to the Constitution that been made known to you and is now the subject of my complaint.
Finally, I must ask you to advise me of the total annual amounts of money that your Council has paid to NPAS during each accounting period since your Council first introduced a decriminalized Parking Regime. In asking for this information, I rely upon the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act.
The Claim to an Independent Status that is currently being maintained by NPAS and its Adjudicators is now the subject of particular enquiry with the European Court of Human Rights: This Court has the particular responsibility for ensuring that the provisions of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights are fully maintained by HM Government. Enquiries thus far have established that there is great interest in the fact that NPAS is actually funded by those parties which have a most direct interest in making sure that there is failure in the appeals offered by members of the general public.
No doubt you will be kind enough to confirm that you have received this first advice from me and that my given enquiries are now receiving your close attention, bearing in mind that all documentation is for referral to the Administrative Court, as necessary, within a very short period of time.
Thank you for your attention to these matters,
Yours faithfully,
Robin de Crittenden.
By First Class Mail Recorded Delivery
Mr G Fitzgerald,
The Chief Executive,
City of Sunderland,
The Civic Centre,
Burdon Road,
SUNDERLAND.
SR2 7DN
Advance Copy by e-mail:- alyson.cooper@sunderland.gov.uk
Dear Mr Fitzgerald,
Re: Penalty Charge Notice SX07015381 – Notice of Intent - Judicial Review
I refer to all previous correspondence in this matter, and must advise that since your Council has failed to process this Penalty Notice in any prompt and lawful manner, &/or give effect to any complete withdrawal of this Notice, it is my intention to proceed to Judicial Review, naming your Council as a defendant: If your Council has any intention of proposing some alternative method of settling this matter, then I must ask you to make such proposals known to me during the course of the next 14 days.
The intended ‘lead case’ in my application for Judicial Review will cite the City of Worcester and the anticipated decision of an NPAS Adjudicator that will be issued, following a Tribunal Hearing that is due to take place in Worcester before the end of October, 2005. NPAS is advised of my intention to attend at this particular hearing and is further advised of my intention to take a full recording of all proceedings, for the benefit of the Administrative Court.
When the tribunal decision is published in the Worcester Case, my consolidated application to the Administrative Court can be finalized and will be filed.
In the meantime, I must ask you to confirm in writing whether or not you are satisfied that your Council has properly published all required notices &/or traffic orders in accordance with the requirement of the RTA 1991 and in respect of the area of Sunderland that is involved with Parking Charge Notice SX07015381. I am aware of the fact that Sunderland has failed to publish the required notices/orders in respect of other areas of the town and now provide you with full opportunity to confirm that your house is in good technical order, before the Administrative Court is required to pass judgment on the part that your Council has played/is continuing to play in a wilful breach to the Constitution that been made known to you and is now the subject of my complaint.
Finally, I must ask you to advise me of the total annual amounts of money that your Council has paid to NPAS during each accounting period since your Council first introduced a decriminalized Parking Regime. In asking for this information, I rely upon the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act.
The Claim to an Independent Status that is currently being maintained by NPAS and its Adjudicators is now the subject of particular enquiry with the European Court of Human Rights: This Court has the particular responsibility for ensuring that the provisions of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights are fully maintained by HM Government. Enquiries thus far have established that there is great interest in the fact that NPAS is actually funded by those parties which have a most direct interest in making sure that there is failure in the appeals offered by members of the general public.
No doubt you will be kind enough to confirm that you have received this first advice from me and that my given enquiries are now receiving your close attention, bearing in mind that all documentation is for referral to the Administrative Court, as necessary, within a very short period of time.
Thank you for your attention to these matters,
Yours faithfully,
Robin de Crittenden.
Wednesday, September 07, 2005
NPAS 'Independent'...bet you 60p a ticket that they're not!
Independent Tribunals
Per Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights
1.The Text of Article 6 reads as follows:-
'In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law . . . . .
2. The Oxford English Reference Dictionary
Defines 'independent' as follows:-
'not dependent on another (person) for one's opinion or livelihood'
3. The National Parking Adjudication Service (NPAS) appoints the Adjudicators who preside over the Tribunals that are established by the terms of the RTA 1991 (De-Criminalised Parking).
NPAS is funded by Local Authorities that operate the decriminalised system (at the rate of 60p per Parking Ticket issued). NPAS does not receive any financial support from any other source, any other body or any other method.
It is therefore my opinion that such funding arrangements do not and cannot provide for the independence that is claimed by the tribunals that are assembled under the NPAS 'umbrella'.
4. We now need to establish and define the precise standards of 'Independence' that are required by Article 6, as defined and 'guarded' by the European Court of Human Rights or the European Court of Justice.
It is possible that the European Court has recorded 'precedents' that will now serve to show that the NPAS arrangements fail to meet the required standards.
We look forward to any comments or further evidence. Please send to enquiries@parkingappeals.co.uk or post on the site.
The net is closing on this whole squalid money making motorist fleecing scam.
Per Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights
1.The Text of Article 6 reads as follows:-
'In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law . . . . .
2. The Oxford English Reference Dictionary
Defines 'independent' as follows:-
'not dependent on another (person) for one's opinion or livelihood'
3. The National Parking Adjudication Service (NPAS) appoints the Adjudicators who preside over the Tribunals that are established by the terms of the RTA 1991 (De-Criminalised Parking).
NPAS is funded by Local Authorities that operate the decriminalised system (at the rate of 60p per Parking Ticket issued). NPAS does not receive any financial support from any other source, any other body or any other method.
It is therefore my opinion that such funding arrangements do not and cannot provide for the independence that is claimed by the tribunals that are assembled under the NPAS 'umbrella'.
4. We now need to establish and define the precise standards of 'Independence' that are required by Article 6, as defined and 'guarded' by the European Court of Human Rights or the European Court of Justice.
It is possible that the European Court has recorded 'precedents' that will now serve to show that the NPAS arrangements fail to meet the required standards.
We look forward to any comments or further evidence. Please send to enquiries@parkingappeals.co.uk or post on the site.
The net is closing on this whole squalid money making motorist fleecing scam.
Tuesday, September 06, 2005
Blackburn with Darwen Borough Council unlawfully issuing Parking Tickets
Breaking news in Lancashire...another Local Authority has been caught bang to rights issuing Penalty Charge Notices unlawfully...this time Blackburn with Darwen Borough Council.
A case was decided by the NPAS Adjudicator on 29th July 2005 in favour of the appellant because the Council did not have a valid Traffic Regulation Order. In this instance it was the Borough of Blackburn with Darwen (Off Street Parking Places and Revocation) Order 2004 and was supposed to come into force on May 24th 2004.
The trouble is that it referes to an 'excess charge of £40' being due but the Penalty Charge issued is for £60. Therefore, the Council's failure to amend the TRO and the discrepancy with regard to the charges means that the TRO is unenforceable and so is the penalty which has not been set by the Council
This is the tip of a very large iceberg and is expanding into a national problem.
Blackburn Council's problems are only just beginning. The story will be breaking in the press shortly and as with Sunderland Council they will be forced to refund the monies obtained unlawfully to all those aggrieved motorists out there.
As more news breaks in different parts of the country we will report it and begin to build up a dossier against all the offending authorities.
Get your friends to register their e-mail with us and it could save them a lot of money when we uncover their own Local Authority's mistakes.
Simply send an e-mail to metricmartyrs@btconnect.com titled 'Parking List.'
A case was decided by the NPAS Adjudicator on 29th July 2005 in favour of the appellant because the Council did not have a valid Traffic Regulation Order. In this instance it was the Borough of Blackburn with Darwen (Off Street Parking Places and Revocation) Order 2004 and was supposed to come into force on May 24th 2004.
The trouble is that it referes to an 'excess charge of £40' being due but the Penalty Charge issued is for £60. Therefore, the Council's failure to amend the TRO and the discrepancy with regard to the charges means that the TRO is unenforceable and so is the penalty which has not been set by the Council
This is the tip of a very large iceberg and is expanding into a national problem.
Blackburn Council's problems are only just beginning. The story will be breaking in the press shortly and as with Sunderland Council they will be forced to refund the monies obtained unlawfully to all those aggrieved motorists out there.
As more news breaks in different parts of the country we will report it and begin to build up a dossier against all the offending authorities.
Get your friends to register their e-mail with us and it could save them a lot of money when we uncover their own Local Authority's mistakes.
Simply send an e-mail to metricmartyrs@btconnect.com titled 'Parking List.'
Monday, September 05, 2005
Metric Martyrs Wrongly Convicted...A Miscarriage of Justice
Metric Martyrs judgment and convictions looking increasingly unsafe.
It is now beginning to unravel.
The most recent report from the House of Commons Library states:
"There was no appeal from the Divisional Court to the House of Lords in the Thoburn case, which means that the judgment has legal effect.But under the principles of English common law, the judgment may be superseded by another judgment from the Divisional Court, or the House of Lords"
It can be seen under the title "House of Common Library - Bill of Rights and Metric Martyrs." Posted 26th August 2005.
And previously disclosed evidence from the House of Commons Library reveals:
"The opinion of Justice Laws is not universally accepted amongst judges or legislators." Read it here
However, a most recent decision by the NPAS Parking Adjudicator (read here ) seems not to take on board the Lord Justice Laws decision that the Bill of Rights can only be repealed by 'express words.'
An appeal against the adjudicator's decision on a point of law can be taken to Judicial Review...the conflict for them will be to uphold the Metric Martyrs' judgment which will force 'administrative fines' to fall or agree with the doctrine of implied repeal which will have the effect of striking down the Martyrs' judgment.
The campaign will continue until we get the criminal conviction of the late Steve Thoburn and the three other traders quashed on appeal.
Comments and opinion to metricmartyrs@btconnect.com
http://www.neilherron.blogspot.com/
Is the NPAS Parking Adjudicator independent? You decide. Read the staggering expose here
It is now beginning to unravel.
The most recent report from the House of Commons Library states:
"There was no appeal from the Divisional Court to the House of Lords in the Thoburn case, which means that the judgment has legal effect.But under the principles of English common law, the judgment may be superseded by another judgment from the Divisional Court, or the House of Lords"
It can be seen under the title "House of Common Library - Bill of Rights and Metric Martyrs." Posted 26th August 2005.
And previously disclosed evidence from the House of Commons Library reveals:
"The opinion of Justice Laws is not universally accepted amongst judges or legislators." Read it here
However, a most recent decision by the NPAS Parking Adjudicator (read here ) seems not to take on board the Lord Justice Laws decision that the Bill of Rights can only be repealed by 'express words.'
An appeal against the adjudicator's decision on a point of law can be taken to Judicial Review...the conflict for them will be to uphold the Metric Martyrs' judgment which will force 'administrative fines' to fall or agree with the doctrine of implied repeal which will have the effect of striking down the Martyrs' judgment.
The campaign will continue until we get the criminal conviction of the late Steve Thoburn and the three other traders quashed on appeal.
Comments and opinion to metricmartyrs@btconnect.com
http://www.neilherron.blogspot.com/
Is the NPAS Parking Adjudicator independent? You decide. Read the staggering expose here
Bill of Rights 1689...NPAS Decision
The National Parking Adjudication Service, in a case between Anthony Michael Higgins and Sefton Borough Council, has rejected the Bill of Rights defence that he used.
The full decision is in the post below.
Any comments would be appreciated and it may now give the opportunity for someone to take the matter to Judicial Review on a point of law.
The full decision is in the post below.
Any comments would be appreciated and it may now give the opportunity for someone to take the matter to Judicial Review on a point of law.
Sunday, September 04, 2005
Did the UK Metrication Association lie? You decide
The British Weights and Measures Association's John Gardner's excellent report and expose reveals that all is not what it seems with the UKMA's denials that they did not lobby the European Commission with regard to the phasing out of imperial measures.
Seems like the UKMA's Chairman, Mr. Robin Paice has some explaining to do.
It all unravels for him here
Seems like the UKMA's Chairman, Mr. Robin Paice has some explaining to do.
It all unravels for him here
Thursday, September 01, 2005
NPAS...THAT Telephone call...what was said...and the apologies.
Is the National Parking Adjudication Service Independent?
Will I ever get a fair hearing?
Judge for yourself, but first you need to be reminded that NPAS are funded at the rate of 60p per PCN (Penalty Charge Notice) and they are answerable to the NPAS Joint Committee (comprising members from Local Authorities subscribing to the decriminalised parking regime).
On their website video an Adjudicator states that, "This is in fact a Court of Law." If you click on the link here and view the video you can see the 'independent' adjudicator.
I have a letter on my desk from Paul Griffiths, Service Development Officer which states, "...the National Parking Adjudication Service is not a Court of Law but an Independent Tribunal..."
Which is it NPAS?
The adjudicator on the video states,"I have no connection whatsoever with the local authority."
NPAS is 'answerable' to NPAS Joint Committee which comprises members drawn from Local Authorities.
NPAS is funded by tickets issued by Local Authorities and their agents.
I smell a connection!
Meanwhile the Draconian enforcement regimes have been unleashed on the unsuspecting motorist who doesn't realise that his right to appeal is to an entity complicit in the whole cash raising scam.
I offered NPAS a meeting to make them aware of the unlawful activities of Sunderland City Council and their agents, NCP. When you read their response it is clear that they are quite prepared to share information detailing press coverage with other Local Authorities but are not interested in receiving evidence of serious malpractice from a member of the public.
How the story began can be read here... National Parking Adjudication Service...On the Record
The contents of THAT telephone call ( the one in which I overheard Tribunal Manager, Andrew Barfoot talking to Chief Adjudicator, Caroline Shepherd after he forgot to hang up his mobile telephone) can be read here . A link to his response is provided but can also be read here
The letter to Chief Adjudicator can be seen here and her apology here.
If you have any evidence of malpractice in any local authority you can e-mail us at metricmartyrs@btconnect.com or call in confidence on 0845 147 2006
We are aware of the Accrington case which appears to highlight the fact that every ticket issued in Lancashire to date under the decriminalised regime has been issued unlawfully. Again, as in Sunderland, the implications of this are enormous. More to follow.
There is also a precedent regarding Hackney Carriage Stands (Taxi Ranks) which will have knock on implications for every other authority who has made a similar error.
It appears as though procedures of good practice and understanding of the legislation have been side-stepped in the race to initiate the 'cash cow' decriminalised parking enforcement regimes.
Will I ever get a fair hearing?
Judge for yourself, but first you need to be reminded that NPAS are funded at the rate of 60p per PCN (Penalty Charge Notice) and they are answerable to the NPAS Joint Committee (comprising members from Local Authorities subscribing to the decriminalised parking regime).
On their website video an Adjudicator states that, "This is in fact a Court of Law." If you click on the link here and view the video you can see the 'independent' adjudicator.
I have a letter on my desk from Paul Griffiths, Service Development Officer which states, "...the National Parking Adjudication Service is not a Court of Law but an Independent Tribunal..."
Which is it NPAS?
The adjudicator on the video states,"I have no connection whatsoever with the local authority."
NPAS is 'answerable' to NPAS Joint Committee which comprises members drawn from Local Authorities.
NPAS is funded by tickets issued by Local Authorities and their agents.
I smell a connection!
Meanwhile the Draconian enforcement regimes have been unleashed on the unsuspecting motorist who doesn't realise that his right to appeal is to an entity complicit in the whole cash raising scam.
I offered NPAS a meeting to make them aware of the unlawful activities of Sunderland City Council and their agents, NCP. When you read their response it is clear that they are quite prepared to share information detailing press coverage with other Local Authorities but are not interested in receiving evidence of serious malpractice from a member of the public.
How the story began can be read here... National Parking Adjudication Service...On the Record
The contents of THAT telephone call ( the one in which I overheard Tribunal Manager, Andrew Barfoot talking to Chief Adjudicator, Caroline Shepherd after he forgot to hang up his mobile telephone) can be read here . A link to his response is provided but can also be read here
The letter to Chief Adjudicator can be seen here and her apology here.
If you have any evidence of malpractice in any local authority you can e-mail us at metricmartyrs@btconnect.com or call in confidence on 0845 147 2006
We are aware of the Accrington case which appears to highlight the fact that every ticket issued in Lancashire to date under the decriminalised regime has been issued unlawfully. Again, as in Sunderland, the implications of this are enormous. More to follow.
There is also a precedent regarding Hackney Carriage Stands (Taxi Ranks) which will have knock on implications for every other authority who has made a similar error.
It appears as though procedures of good practice and understanding of the legislation have been side-stepped in the race to initiate the 'cash cow' decriminalised parking enforcement regimes.
Letter to Caroline Shepherd NPAS Chief Adjudicator regarding THAT phone call
12 Frederick Street
Sunderland
SR1 1NA
24th August 2005
Caroline Shepherd
Service Director
National Parking Adjudication Service
Barlow House
Minshull Street
Manchester
MN1 3DZ
Dear Caroline,
I have enclosed a copy of the letter to Andrew Barfoot. It is pretty self-explanatory.
I would also be grateful for a full written apology from yourself regarding the conversation and prejudicial and defamatory comments overheard in the conversation between Mr. Barfoot and yourself. It most certainly does not portray NPAS in a very good light nor portray you as an independent, impartial arbiter.
I would also wish for written confirmation that those comments and opinions will in no way be prejudicial to any hearing I wish to bring before NPAS.
I would also be grateful if you could provide me with the names of all the individual members of the Joint Committee.
I trust that the further questions raised of Andrew Barfoot will not need replication by yourself.
I hope that I receive a satisfactory response and there will be no need to take the matters further. I have copied both communications to the Joint Committee for their information.
Yours sincerely,
Neil Herron
Chief Adjudicator, Caroline Shepherd's response can be read here
Sunderland
SR1 1NA
24th August 2005
Caroline Shepherd
Service Director
National Parking Adjudication Service
Barlow House
Minshull Street
Manchester
MN1 3DZ
Dear Caroline,
I have enclosed a copy of the letter to Andrew Barfoot. It is pretty self-explanatory.
I would also be grateful for a full written apology from yourself regarding the conversation and prejudicial and defamatory comments overheard in the conversation between Mr. Barfoot and yourself. It most certainly does not portray NPAS in a very good light nor portray you as an independent, impartial arbiter.
I would also wish for written confirmation that those comments and opinions will in no way be prejudicial to any hearing I wish to bring before NPAS.
I would also be grateful if you could provide me with the names of all the individual members of the Joint Committee.
I trust that the further questions raised of Andrew Barfoot will not need replication by yourself.
I hope that I receive a satisfactory response and there will be no need to take the matters further. I have copied both communications to the Joint Committee for their information.
Yours sincerely,
Neil Herron
Chief Adjudicator, Caroline Shepherd's response can be read here
Letter to Andrew Barfoot NPAS Tribunal Manager Regarding THAT phone call.
12 Frederick Street
Sunderland
SR1 1NA
24th August 2005
Andrew Barfoot
National Parking Adjudication Service
Barlow House
Minshull Street
Manchester
MN1 3DZ
Thank you for your telephone call of 5.23pm Tuesday 23rd August, which was in response to my request (by telephone to you on 0161 242527) the previous day to facilitate a meeting with representatives from NPAS.
During the call I made you aware of the situation with regard to the Sunderland Council Parking regime and its operators, NCP. The evidence, which had been gathered and was quite substantial, and reported in the local and national press and media, in my opinion, needed to be brought to the attention of the adjudicator.
You politely advised me that such a meeting was not possible and you had no authority to advise on the legitimacy of the Sunderland Parking Area Order, nor comment on the legitimacy of their operation. I also informed you of the reasons why I had initially raised the subject of the Adjudicator’s independence in relation to the Metric Martyrs’ case and asked whether you could confirm that NPAS received remuneration in relation to each ticket issued. The Accrington case was discussed with regard to different Traffic Orders being required once the regime had shifted from ‘criminalised’ to ‘decriminalised.’
As you may recall, the call ended quite amicably ended with me thanking you for your courtesy in returning my call, and saying (in relation to the Sunderland situation) “Unlike the Department for Transport and Secretary of State who appeared to be 'battening down the hatches and heading for the bunker.'”
The call ended after 11 minutes.
At this point I picked up my telephone to make a telephone call. Surprisingly, the line was still connected.
I have a record of everything which was said in the five minute conversation between you and a female colleague (which you later identified as NPAS Service Director, Caroline Shepherd), although some of her responses are not as clear as she was obviously further away from the telephone than yourself.
Your opening line to her was, “He is mad. He’s mad. He is determined to prove that we are unconstitutional…(silence)…Who is this Neil Herron?”
You then state, “ He is determined to prove we are unconstitutional….the Bill of Rights…(slight laugh)…I was minded not to help him.”
…and then, “He’s got twenty-seven tickets.”
Female voice, “Can we help Sunderland?”
You then state, “He is going to appeal and we are going to ignore his arguments…but we are going to get twenty-seven appeals.”
The conversation lasts for five minutes with interspersed silences but also includes mention of, “Calls to Sunderland," and “Lancashire case” which perhaps refers to the case that I brought to your attention in Accrington.
After five minutes the line went dead and I pressed 1471. I was quite surprised when a mobile number 0771 743 2083 was given as I had expected a call from NPAS to come from a landline and not a mobile telephone number.
You confirm your name on request and I give my name. I ask your location.
“I am in a lift going down with my colleague.”
I ask for your manager’s name and the name of the female voice I overheard.
“ Her name is Caroline Shepherd and she is here with me.”
I asked for her to be put on the line.
“…(one minute of silence)…Hello, this is Caroline Shepherd.”
Caroline Shepherd confirms that she is answerable to the Joint Committee and provides an address and her position:
“Service Director at the National Parking Adjudication Service
Barlow House
Minshull Street
Manchester M1 3DZ…(postcode is repeated)”
Caroline Shepherd then says, “I will give you some assurances that… follow the process and it will come to appeal and it will be dealt with on an individual basis by an independent solicitor…”
I inform Caroline Shepherd that you left your telephone connected after believing you had terminated the call and I have a record of what was said between the two of you, and highlight the fact that you believe that I am mad.
She then says, “May I offer you my sincerest apologies and you have a solemn undertaking that what was said would not be prejudicial to any appeal you bring before NPAS…and that you will be dealt with fairly in any hearing and…this is a professional matter and…(inaudible)…will undergo any necessary retraining.”
I interject and inform her that I will require a full apology in writing. She offers to discuss ‘my concerns’ further but at this point inform her that I will be putting the complaint in writing and informing the Joint Committee, and there is no need to continue the conversation further.
The call is terminated at 5.44pm.
Therefore Mr. Barfoot, consider this a letter before action.
I was informed in the telephone call verbally by Caroline Shepherd that I would receive a full written apology. I will be writing to her separately.
1. Unless I receive a full written apology and retraction from yourself for the defamatory and prejudicial comments you made then I will have no option but to take matters further. I am concerned that your prejudices may influence the impartiality of any tribunal or hearing I may attend and I will not be dealt with fairly. I wish to have a written reassurance from yourself that this will not be the case.
2. I would also like an explanation as to why you were using a mobile telephone for NPAS business when it appears as though you began the conversation in the office. Is this normal practice?
3. I would also like copies of all the information under regarding myself held by NPAS under the Data Protection Act 1998 including records of any telephone conversations, e-mails or written communications between yourself and Sunderland City Council.
4. I would be grateful for confirmation as to whether NPAS is covered by the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
I trust you will treat this matter very seriously. I will be copying in this communication to the Joint Committee and Service Director, Caroline Shepherd.
Yours sincerely,
Neil Herron
Cc. Caroline Shepherd, Service Director, NPAS
Cc. Joint Committee, NPAS
His letter of apology can be read here
Sunderland
SR1 1NA
24th August 2005
Andrew Barfoot
National Parking Adjudication Service
Barlow House
Minshull Street
Manchester
MN1 3DZ
Thank you for your telephone call of 5.23pm Tuesday 23rd August, which was in response to my request (by telephone to you on 0161 242527) the previous day to facilitate a meeting with representatives from NPAS.
During the call I made you aware of the situation with regard to the Sunderland Council Parking regime and its operators, NCP. The evidence, which had been gathered and was quite substantial, and reported in the local and national press and media, in my opinion, needed to be brought to the attention of the adjudicator.
You politely advised me that such a meeting was not possible and you had no authority to advise on the legitimacy of the Sunderland Parking Area Order, nor comment on the legitimacy of their operation. I also informed you of the reasons why I had initially raised the subject of the Adjudicator’s independence in relation to the Metric Martyrs’ case and asked whether you could confirm that NPAS received remuneration in relation to each ticket issued. The Accrington case was discussed with regard to different Traffic Orders being required once the regime had shifted from ‘criminalised’ to ‘decriminalised.’
As you may recall, the call ended quite amicably ended with me thanking you for your courtesy in returning my call, and saying (in relation to the Sunderland situation) “Unlike the Department for Transport and Secretary of State who appeared to be 'battening down the hatches and heading for the bunker.'”
The call ended after 11 minutes.
At this point I picked up my telephone to make a telephone call. Surprisingly, the line was still connected.
I have a record of everything which was said in the five minute conversation between you and a female colleague (which you later identified as NPAS Service Director, Caroline Shepherd), although some of her responses are not as clear as she was obviously further away from the telephone than yourself.
Your opening line to her was, “He is mad. He’s mad. He is determined to prove that we are unconstitutional…(silence)…Who is this Neil Herron?”
You then state, “ He is determined to prove we are unconstitutional….the Bill of Rights…(slight laugh)…I was minded not to help him.”
…and then, “He’s got twenty-seven tickets.”
Female voice, “Can we help Sunderland?”
You then state, “He is going to appeal and we are going to ignore his arguments…but we are going to get twenty-seven appeals.”
The conversation lasts for five minutes with interspersed silences but also includes mention of, “Calls to Sunderland," and “Lancashire case” which perhaps refers to the case that I brought to your attention in Accrington.
After five minutes the line went dead and I pressed 1471. I was quite surprised when a mobile number 0771 743 2083 was given as I had expected a call from NPAS to come from a landline and not a mobile telephone number.
You confirm your name on request and I give my name. I ask your location.
“I am in a lift going down with my colleague.”
I ask for your manager’s name and the name of the female voice I overheard.
“ Her name is Caroline Shepherd and she is here with me.”
I asked for her to be put on the line.
“…(one minute of silence)…Hello, this is Caroline Shepherd.”
Caroline Shepherd confirms that she is answerable to the Joint Committee and provides an address and her position:
“Service Director at the National Parking Adjudication Service
Barlow House
Minshull Street
Manchester M1 3DZ…(postcode is repeated)”
Caroline Shepherd then says, “I will give you some assurances that… follow the process and it will come to appeal and it will be dealt with on an individual basis by an independent solicitor…”
I inform Caroline Shepherd that you left your telephone connected after believing you had terminated the call and I have a record of what was said between the two of you, and highlight the fact that you believe that I am mad.
She then says, “May I offer you my sincerest apologies and you have a solemn undertaking that what was said would not be prejudicial to any appeal you bring before NPAS…and that you will be dealt with fairly in any hearing and…this is a professional matter and…(inaudible)…will undergo any necessary retraining.”
I interject and inform her that I will require a full apology in writing. She offers to discuss ‘my concerns’ further but at this point inform her that I will be putting the complaint in writing and informing the Joint Committee, and there is no need to continue the conversation further.
The call is terminated at 5.44pm.
Therefore Mr. Barfoot, consider this a letter before action.
I was informed in the telephone call verbally by Caroline Shepherd that I would receive a full written apology. I will be writing to her separately.
1. Unless I receive a full written apology and retraction from yourself for the defamatory and prejudicial comments you made then I will have no option but to take matters further. I am concerned that your prejudices may influence the impartiality of any tribunal or hearing I may attend and I will not be dealt with fairly. I wish to have a written reassurance from yourself that this will not be the case.
2. I would also like an explanation as to why you were using a mobile telephone for NPAS business when it appears as though you began the conversation in the office. Is this normal practice?
3. I would also like copies of all the information under regarding myself held by NPAS under the Data Protection Act 1998 including records of any telephone conversations, e-mails or written communications between yourself and Sunderland City Council.
4. I would be grateful for confirmation as to whether NPAS is covered by the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
I trust you will treat this matter very seriously. I will be copying in this communication to the Joint Committee and Service Director, Caroline Shepherd.
Yours sincerely,
Neil Herron
Cc. Caroline Shepherd, Service Director, NPAS
Cc. Joint Committee, NPAS
His letter of apology can be read here
Wednesday, August 31, 2005
NPAS...National Parking Adjucation Service is Independent? You decide.
We have had confirmation today that the National Parking Adjudication Service receives 60p from EVERY Penalty Charge Notice issued across the country.
They state that they are an independent tribunal.
Their website video states that, "This is in fact a Court of Law." If you click on the link here and view the video you can see the 'independent' adjudicator.
I have a letter on my desk from Paul Griffiths, Service Development Officer which states, "...the National Parking Adjudication Service is not a Court of Law but an Independent Tribunal..."
Which is it NPAS?
The adjudicator on the video states,"I have no connection whatsoever with the local authority."
NPAS is 'answerable' to NPAS Joint Committee which comprises members drawn from Local Authorities.
NPAS is funded by tickets issued by Local Authorities and their agents.
I smell a connection!
I will shortly be revealing the content of the overheard telephone call of Tuesday, August 23, 2005 'National Parking Adjudication Service...on the record' and will be posting the NPAS apologies following 'this unfortunate incident.'
They state that they are an independent tribunal.
Their website video states that, "This is in fact a Court of Law." If you click on the link here and view the video you can see the 'independent' adjudicator.
I have a letter on my desk from Paul Griffiths, Service Development Officer which states, "...the National Parking Adjudication Service is not a Court of Law but an Independent Tribunal..."
Which is it NPAS?
The adjudicator on the video states,"I have no connection whatsoever with the local authority."
NPAS is 'answerable' to NPAS Joint Committee which comprises members drawn from Local Authorities.
NPAS is funded by tickets issued by Local Authorities and their agents.
I smell a connection!
I will shortly be revealing the content of the overheard telephone call of Tuesday, August 23, 2005 'National Parking Adjudication Service...on the record' and will be posting the NPAS apologies following 'this unfortunate incident.'
Tuesday, August 30, 2005
Highway Robbery...by Councils across the land
Home front
By Philip Johnston
Daily Telegraph
(Filed: 29/08/2005)
Why are councils still getting away with highway robbery?
Do you ever wonder what happened to all those government initiatives that grab the headlines and then disappear? What, for instance, became of a promise to "curb the activities of overzealous traffic wardens who have been handing out fixed penalty fines for technical infringements".
In March 2004, this newspaper reported that David Jamieson, then roads minister, had told MPs that local councils would receive statutory guidelines on the civil enforcement of traffic offences. He made this announcement during the committee stage of the Traffic Management Bill after Tory backbenchers called on the Government to respond to complaints from constituents about the way local councils were apparently using parking fines as a way to raise money.
Unusually - and refreshingly - Mr Jamieson, who has since left Parliament, said he had been persuaded by the committee's arguments and would bring forward an amendment to put the guidance on a statutory basis, so that motorists would have some legal redress if local authorities were unreasonable in their enforcement of traffic regulations.
With most parking and bus lane contraventions now "decriminalised", giving transgressors no opportunity to defend themselves in court, it was considered important to stop councils abusing this new-found opportunity to swell their coffers at the motorists' expense. By putting the guidelines on a statutory basis, adjudicators would have to take account of "proportionality" and "reasonableness" when hearing appeals against fixed penalty fines. At present, the adjudicator must apply the letter of the law and is not allowed the discretion that would probably have been exercised by a "sensible" police officer under a criminalised regime.
The Tories called Mr Jamieson's announcement "a victory in the fightback for the motorist". Christopher Chope, the party spokesman, said voluntary guidelines had failed to curb excessive action against law-abiding motorists who were "being persecuted and oppressed by unreasonable men and women in uniforms … often at the behest of local authority employers out of greed or hatred of cars and those who drive them."
So what has happened? Nothing. Earlier this month, the Commons transport select committee announced its intention to conduct an inquiry into parking policy to establish whether local councils were "carrying out controls reasonably, fairly and accountably". It said: "Concerns have been raised over the standard of enforcement activity undertaken by some councils and contractors. In particular, there are concerns … that the surpluses raised through parking enforcement have become the main motivation for local authority parking control."
One question the committee proposes to consider is whether statutory guidance is necessary "to ensure proportionality in enforcement and proper discretion in applying measures". But is this not what the Government said it intended to issue 17 months ago?
As is often the case, a promise to do something is subsequently used to fob off anyone who continues to criticise policy. In February, Tory peer Lord Lucas introduced a private Bill aimed at bringing some sense to the parking regimes across the country and controlling the activities of parking wardens, whom he somewhat colourfully described as "a collection of licensed highwaymen who are roaming our streets … intent on robbing us at every opportunity".
He was told not to get so het up because the matter was already in hand. Lady Crawley, for the Government, said she was unable to support Lord Lucas's measure "not because we disagree with the principles behind the Bill or the idea of guidance in relation to the conduct of parking operatives - for we do not - [but] simply because it is unnecessary. That is because the Government has already taken steps to address the question of guidance on parking enforcement, and thereby on the conduct of parking attendants."
Oh really? When the Transport Department was asked last week what has happened to this measure, a spokesman said there was to be a public consultation "hopefully later this calendar year, but we don't yet have a date". Let us, charitably, assume the guidance is almost complete somewhere in the bowels of Whitehall and that the consultation begins in October. Normally, three months is given to conclude such an exercise. It would be no surprise, however, if the Government says it will await the transport committee's deliberations before putting forward proposals. That could take until the middle of next year.
Then the guidance will have to be drawn up and regulations issued, since it is intended to be statutory. That's another six months, or more if there is further consultation. If this guidance - intended to ameliorate one of the most irritating aspects of modern life and promised amid a fanfare of self-congratulatory trumpets and the tooting of horns from grateful motorists - materialises within two years of the date it was promised, there will be squadrons of pigs flying over Whitehall.
Meanwhile, local authorities continue to cash in on traffic controls that everyone accepts are necessary but that are resented when they are unreasonably applied. As an example, one camera monitoring a bus lane in south London has resulted in 5,000 drivers being fined - our household has paid three of them - in just one year because cars have to enter the lane to turn left. That will have raised at least £250,000, or more if the offending motorist has failed to pay the £50 penalty within 14 days and has had to stump up £100, which is a disincentive to appeal.
After local protests, the council's head of traffic has promised to introduce gaps in the bus lane to allow access to the roads on the other side, though only as part of a general road resurfacing scheme.
Will we all get our money back? Fat chance. But if the Government moved faster to fulfil its promises to Parliament - and listened to any sensible recommendations that emerge from the select committee's inquiry - it might be possible to rebuild the essential elements of fairness and consent without which laws will always fall into disrepute.
philip.johnston@telegraph.co.uk
By Philip Johnston
Daily Telegraph
(Filed: 29/08/2005)
Why are councils still getting away with highway robbery?
Do you ever wonder what happened to all those government initiatives that grab the headlines and then disappear? What, for instance, became of a promise to "curb the activities of overzealous traffic wardens who have been handing out fixed penalty fines for technical infringements".
In March 2004, this newspaper reported that David Jamieson, then roads minister, had told MPs that local councils would receive statutory guidelines on the civil enforcement of traffic offences. He made this announcement during the committee stage of the Traffic Management Bill after Tory backbenchers called on the Government to respond to complaints from constituents about the way local councils were apparently using parking fines as a way to raise money.
Unusually - and refreshingly - Mr Jamieson, who has since left Parliament, said he had been persuaded by the committee's arguments and would bring forward an amendment to put the guidance on a statutory basis, so that motorists would have some legal redress if local authorities were unreasonable in their enforcement of traffic regulations.
With most parking and bus lane contraventions now "decriminalised", giving transgressors no opportunity to defend themselves in court, it was considered important to stop councils abusing this new-found opportunity to swell their coffers at the motorists' expense. By putting the guidelines on a statutory basis, adjudicators would have to take account of "proportionality" and "reasonableness" when hearing appeals against fixed penalty fines. At present, the adjudicator must apply the letter of the law and is not allowed the discretion that would probably have been exercised by a "sensible" police officer under a criminalised regime.
The Tories called Mr Jamieson's announcement "a victory in the fightback for the motorist". Christopher Chope, the party spokesman, said voluntary guidelines had failed to curb excessive action against law-abiding motorists who were "being persecuted and oppressed by unreasonable men and women in uniforms … often at the behest of local authority employers out of greed or hatred of cars and those who drive them."
So what has happened? Nothing. Earlier this month, the Commons transport select committee announced its intention to conduct an inquiry into parking policy to establish whether local councils were "carrying out controls reasonably, fairly and accountably". It said: "Concerns have been raised over the standard of enforcement activity undertaken by some councils and contractors. In particular, there are concerns … that the surpluses raised through parking enforcement have become the main motivation for local authority parking control."
One question the committee proposes to consider is whether statutory guidance is necessary "to ensure proportionality in enforcement and proper discretion in applying measures". But is this not what the Government said it intended to issue 17 months ago?
As is often the case, a promise to do something is subsequently used to fob off anyone who continues to criticise policy. In February, Tory peer Lord Lucas introduced a private Bill aimed at bringing some sense to the parking regimes across the country and controlling the activities of parking wardens, whom he somewhat colourfully described as "a collection of licensed highwaymen who are roaming our streets … intent on robbing us at every opportunity".
He was told not to get so het up because the matter was already in hand. Lady Crawley, for the Government, said she was unable to support Lord Lucas's measure "not because we disagree with the principles behind the Bill or the idea of guidance in relation to the conduct of parking operatives - for we do not - [but] simply because it is unnecessary. That is because the Government has already taken steps to address the question of guidance on parking enforcement, and thereby on the conduct of parking attendants."
Oh really? When the Transport Department was asked last week what has happened to this measure, a spokesman said there was to be a public consultation "hopefully later this calendar year, but we don't yet have a date". Let us, charitably, assume the guidance is almost complete somewhere in the bowels of Whitehall and that the consultation begins in October. Normally, three months is given to conclude such an exercise. It would be no surprise, however, if the Government says it will await the transport committee's deliberations before putting forward proposals. That could take until the middle of next year.
Then the guidance will have to be drawn up and regulations issued, since it is intended to be statutory. That's another six months, or more if there is further consultation. If this guidance - intended to ameliorate one of the most irritating aspects of modern life and promised amid a fanfare of self-congratulatory trumpets and the tooting of horns from grateful motorists - materialises within two years of the date it was promised, there will be squadrons of pigs flying over Whitehall.
Meanwhile, local authorities continue to cash in on traffic controls that everyone accepts are necessary but that are resented when they are unreasonably applied. As an example, one camera monitoring a bus lane in south London has resulted in 5,000 drivers being fined - our household has paid three of them - in just one year because cars have to enter the lane to turn left. That will have raised at least £250,000, or more if the offending motorist has failed to pay the £50 penalty within 14 days and has had to stump up £100, which is a disincentive to appeal.
After local protests, the council's head of traffic has promised to introduce gaps in the bus lane to allow access to the roads on the other side, though only as part of a general road resurfacing scheme.
Will we all get our money back? Fat chance. But if the Government moved faster to fulfil its promises to Parliament - and listened to any sensible recommendations that emerge from the select committee's inquiry - it might be possible to rebuild the essential elements of fairness and consent without which laws will always fall into disrepute.
philip.johnston@telegraph.co.uk
Welcome to the Site...Sunderland Council
Sources have revealed that all is not well at Sunderland City Council as their crisis deepens...they are anxiously visiting this website to see what is coming next.
Welcome to the site.
Just a reminder that we have copies of all communications going back many months from ourselves offering to sit down with officers and members of Sunderland City Council to highlight what our concerns were with the City's parking regime.
It appears as though things have not been handled in the most correct or proper manner by Sunderland city Council or its agents, NCP.
As the investigation continues it may well become a matter for other agencies.
Useful links:
Theft (Amendment) Act 1996
Welcome to the site.
Just a reminder that we have copies of all communications going back many months from ourselves offering to sit down with officers and members of Sunderland City Council to highlight what our concerns were with the City's parking regime.
It appears as though things have not been handled in the most correct or proper manner by Sunderland city Council or its agents, NCP.
As the investigation continues it may well become a matter for other agencies.
Useful links:
Theft (Amendment) Act 1996
The real reason for the EU's insistence on the UK going fully metric
EC commissioner Martin Bangemann had told the association: “Britain is in an anomalous position, as a full partner in the European Union, but sharing a common system of weights and measures with the United States of America, thereby enjoying an unfair competitive advantage in transatlantic trade.”
Gunter sticks his twelve inch foot in it
Press Release
Metric Martyrs Defence Fund
30th August 2005
"Fat Chance Gunter...You'd lose by a mile"
Following lobbying from unnamed groups, Brussels officials over the past few weeks have made a fresh attempt to get the Brits in line with the rest of Europe in using the metric system, UK media report.
"We are in touch with the UK about how they want to do it", a spokesman for industry commissioner Gunter Verheugen was quoted as saying."In legal terms it is clear they have committed themselves to the metric system...now we have to see how to deal with it", he said to the Sunday Times.
At a time when the 'European Project' has just received a double body blow following France and Holland's rejection of the European Constitution, and the Government was embarrassingly forced to abandon holding a referendum in this country, European Commissioner Gunter Verheugen most certainly knows how to put his twelve inch foot in it.
His statements will cause Downing Street to cringe and scurry for cover. After the bloody nose they got last time (only four prosecutions in five years despite millions of offences being committed daily under the Metrication Regulations and Price Marking Orders) the last thing that they will want to face is another 'metric' battle.
Neil Herron, Campaign Director of the Metric Martyrs' Defence Fund states, " Any government that decides it is going to take away the British working man's pint will be committing political suicide. Yet again, these statements by an unelected and unaccountable Commissioner highlight the absurd position of having our own laws made by people outside the bounds of our own accountable democracy. The spotlight needs to be shone on our own elected representatives in Westminster who have allowed this unbelievable state of affairs to exist.
If Gunter wishes to have a bet that we will replace the pint with the litre in British pubs, I predict he will lose by a mile.
And to the Labour Government...come and have a go...we are rolling our sleeves up ready for you."
Would be interesting, in the interests of transparency of course, to find out which 'un-named groups' have been doing the lobbying.
ENDS
Contact:
Neil Herron
0191 565 7143
07776 202045
metricmartyrs@btconnect.com
www.metricmartyrs.co.uk
www.bwmaonline.com
Metric Martyrs Defence Fund
30th August 2005
"Fat Chance Gunter...You'd lose by a mile"
Following lobbying from unnamed groups, Brussels officials over the past few weeks have made a fresh attempt to get the Brits in line with the rest of Europe in using the metric system, UK media report.
"We are in touch with the UK about how they want to do it", a spokesman for industry commissioner Gunter Verheugen was quoted as saying."In legal terms it is clear they have committed themselves to the metric system...now we have to see how to deal with it", he said to the Sunday Times.
At a time when the 'European Project' has just received a double body blow following France and Holland's rejection of the European Constitution, and the Government was embarrassingly forced to abandon holding a referendum in this country, European Commissioner Gunter Verheugen most certainly knows how to put his twelve inch foot in it.
His statements will cause Downing Street to cringe and scurry for cover. After the bloody nose they got last time (only four prosecutions in five years despite millions of offences being committed daily under the Metrication Regulations and Price Marking Orders) the last thing that they will want to face is another 'metric' battle.
Neil Herron, Campaign Director of the Metric Martyrs' Defence Fund states, " Any government that decides it is going to take away the British working man's pint will be committing political suicide. Yet again, these statements by an unelected and unaccountable Commissioner highlight the absurd position of having our own laws made by people outside the bounds of our own accountable democracy. The spotlight needs to be shone on our own elected representatives in Westminster who have allowed this unbelievable state of affairs to exist.
If Gunter wishes to have a bet that we will replace the pint with the litre in British pubs, I predict he will lose by a mile.
And to the Labour Government...come and have a go...we are rolling our sleeves up ready for you."
Would be interesting, in the interests of transparency of course, to find out which 'un-named groups' have been doing the lobbying.
ENDS
Contact:
Neil Herron
0191 565 7143
07776 202045
metricmartyrs@btconnect.com
www.metricmartyrs.co.uk
www.bwmaonline.com
Hands of our pints, traders tell Brussels
Daily Mail
Monday August 29th
They caused uproar by making us buy vegetables in kilos and grams, and now they are gunning for the pint and the mile as well..
Brussels bureaucrats are preparing a fresh assault on the UK's use of the Imperial system of measurements, it emerged yesterday.
The European Commission has ordered the UK Government to announce a date by which it will finally replace pints, miles and acres with litres, kilometres and hectares. A spokesman said that the Government had to fix a date 'as soon as possible' under its legal obligations and could be taken to the European Court in Strasbourg if it did not.
The scrapping of pounds and ounces in shops caused widespread resentment and a new order for change could produce a fresh wave of 'metric martyrs.' Neil Herron of the Metric Martyrs Defence Fund said last night: ' We are ready to roll our sleeves up for the fight.
'Any government that tries to introduce legislation to remove the British working man's pint will be committing political suicide. This would be the straw that broke the camel's back. People won't put up with it and there would be mass demands to leave the European Union.'
When Britain adopted the EC Act in 1972, it agreed to metrification in principle, but in 1979 it was given a 'derogation' to proceed at its own pace. The Department for Transport said last night: ' We are within our rights and we have no intention of getting rid of the mile.'
Other related news items:
EU OBSERVER 29/8/05
Brussels pressures Britain to go metric
By Lisbeth Kirk
The European Commission has reminded Britain of its legal requirement to set a date for abolishing the imperial system, or the use of pints, miles and acres.
Following lobbying from unnamed groups, Brussels officials over the past few weeks have made a fresh attempt to get the Brits in line with the rest of Europe in using the metric system, UK media report.
"We are in touch with the UK about how they want to do it", a spokesman for industry commissioner Gunter Verheugen was quoted as saying."In legal terms it is clear they have committed themselves to the metric system...now we have to see how to deal with it", he said to the Sunday Times.
Metric Martyrs
The Harold Wilson government decided to go metric as early as 1965 and the UK government also agreed to the principle of metrification in 1972 when it adopted the EC act to join the EU.But in 1979 Britain was given a derogation, allowing it to delay implementation of some of the changes.
Again, little happened until 2000 when it became illegal to sell products by reference to pound, pint or gallon - with the exception of beer.
In 2001, a market trader named Steven Thoburn lost a widely-reported court battle to continue labelling his bananas in pounds and ounces.
He was nicknamed the Metric Martyr, but died earlier this year of a heart attack, aged just 39.
Brussels' decision to take up the issue again is likely to spark further controversy among British citizens who are already mostly hostile to the EU.Few Brits see the point in swapping one pint of ale to 568ml or driving 1.609km instead of 1 mile.
"These damn Eurocrats must be mad if they think they can separate a Brit from his pint", Londoner Sam Patterson told the popular British tabloid, the Sun.
The main pro-metrication group in Britain, the UK Metric Association, told the Financial Times it was not "strongly lobbying" the commission.
"We'd prefer to work on persuasion rather than forcing people to do it", said Roz Denny of the group.
Legal action
Earlier this year, Ireland completed its conversion, leaving Britain together with the US among the few countries still using miles on the roads.If the UK fails to act, it risks an infringement procedure at the EU Court of Justice in Luxembourg.However, a spokesman for the Department for Transport told the Sunday Times that "The derogation says we will go to metric when we choose a date. We are within our rights, and we have no intention of getting rid of the mile".
Monday August 29th
They caused uproar by making us buy vegetables in kilos and grams, and now they are gunning for the pint and the mile as well..
Brussels bureaucrats are preparing a fresh assault on the UK's use of the Imperial system of measurements, it emerged yesterday.
The European Commission has ordered the UK Government to announce a date by which it will finally replace pints, miles and acres with litres, kilometres and hectares. A spokesman said that the Government had to fix a date 'as soon as possible' under its legal obligations and could be taken to the European Court in Strasbourg if it did not.
The scrapping of pounds and ounces in shops caused widespread resentment and a new order for change could produce a fresh wave of 'metric martyrs.' Neil Herron of the Metric Martyrs Defence Fund said last night: ' We are ready to roll our sleeves up for the fight.
'Any government that tries to introduce legislation to remove the British working man's pint will be committing political suicide. This would be the straw that broke the camel's back. People won't put up with it and there would be mass demands to leave the European Union.'
When Britain adopted the EC Act in 1972, it agreed to metrification in principle, but in 1979 it was given a 'derogation' to proceed at its own pace. The Department for Transport said last night: ' We are within our rights and we have no intention of getting rid of the mile.'
Other related news items:
EU OBSERVER 29/8/05
Brussels pressures Britain to go metric
By Lisbeth Kirk
The European Commission has reminded Britain of its legal requirement to set a date for abolishing the imperial system, or the use of pints, miles and acres.
Following lobbying from unnamed groups, Brussels officials over the past few weeks have made a fresh attempt to get the Brits in line with the rest of Europe in using the metric system, UK media report.
"We are in touch with the UK about how they want to do it", a spokesman for industry commissioner Gunter Verheugen was quoted as saying."In legal terms it is clear they have committed themselves to the metric system...now we have to see how to deal with it", he said to the Sunday Times.
Metric Martyrs
The Harold Wilson government decided to go metric as early as 1965 and the UK government also agreed to the principle of metrification in 1972 when it adopted the EC act to join the EU.But in 1979 Britain was given a derogation, allowing it to delay implementation of some of the changes.
Again, little happened until 2000 when it became illegal to sell products by reference to pound, pint or gallon - with the exception of beer.
In 2001, a market trader named Steven Thoburn lost a widely-reported court battle to continue labelling his bananas in pounds and ounces.
He was nicknamed the Metric Martyr, but died earlier this year of a heart attack, aged just 39.
Brussels' decision to take up the issue again is likely to spark further controversy among British citizens who are already mostly hostile to the EU.Few Brits see the point in swapping one pint of ale to 568ml or driving 1.609km instead of 1 mile.
"These damn Eurocrats must be mad if they think they can separate a Brit from his pint", Londoner Sam Patterson told the popular British tabloid, the Sun.
The main pro-metrication group in Britain, the UK Metric Association, told the Financial Times it was not "strongly lobbying" the commission.
"We'd prefer to work on persuasion rather than forcing people to do it", said Roz Denny of the group.
Legal action
Earlier this year, Ireland completed its conversion, leaving Britain together with the US among the few countries still using miles on the roads.If the UK fails to act, it risks an infringement procedure at the EU Court of Justice in Luxembourg.However, a spokesman for the Department for Transport told the Sunday Times that "The derogation says we will go to metric when we choose a date. We are within our rights, and we have no intention of getting rid of the mile".
First of many refunds in Sunderland
Why, when Jimmy rang up to complain about the ticket, wasn't he immediately told that there had been a mistake and the ticket would be cancelled.
Sunderland Council have already said that tickets issued after they became aware in November 2003 that they were unlawfully issued, were issued by 'incorrectly trained' wardens. However, it appears from this that the enforcement regime at Parking Services continued to lie and further obtained money by deception.
The more this shambles continues the more evidence of this deceitful behaviour by Sunderland City Council and NCP will be uncovered.
Sunderland Echo
Saturday August 27th 2005
Refund just the ticket for Jimmy
GRANDAD Jimmy Conway was thrilled when he received an unexpected refund on his doormat.
Jimmy, who has 10 grandchildren, had given up the parking fine as a "bad loss" after he was given a £30 fine for parking in a taxi bay in Southwick a year ago.Now the 59-year-old former Army physical training instructor is one of the first of 700 motorists to receive a refund after a blunder by traffic bosses at Sunderland Council.Bosses admitted last week that they had no authority to issue the tickets because they do not have the correct legal orders in place to enforce parking restrictions in taxi ranks.
Mr Conway, of Broadsheath Terrace, Southwick, is a disabled driver and holds the necessary badge, which he displays in the front window of his Ford Escort.He suffers from the lung wasting disease emphysema, which he claims was caused by his service in the Gulf War of 1991.
He said: "I got the ticket about a year ago when I was shopping at Southwick Green."There was a taxi in the disabled parking bay near Kwik Save waiting for a customer so I just pulled up behind it. I never even gave a thought about it being a taxi rank."
Mr Conway says he only spent about 10 minutes shopping but returned to find a parking ticket on the windscreen of his Escort."I was fuming, absolutely fuming," he said. "I had my blue badge on display so the parking attendant could see it."But they paid absolutely no attention to me whatsoever. It was as if I wasn't there."Mr Conway then contacted the council to protest about his ticket but decided not to take the matter to an appeal after being told why he had been fined.
But after hearing about the blunder, which was reported by The Echo on Wednesday last week, he rang the council again and found out his was one of 700 tickets issued in error."I was just elated," Mr Conway said. "I really felt I'd won. I'm just so pleased they were proven wrong."But I'm disgusted with the whole situation. I feel the council is getting money for absolutely nothing."I know the wardens are only doing their job but half the time they look at you as if you're nobody."
Sunderland Council estimates it will have to pay back about £21,000 in fines issued wrongly.
27 August 2005
Sunderland Council have already said that tickets issued after they became aware in November 2003 that they were unlawfully issued, were issued by 'incorrectly trained' wardens. However, it appears from this that the enforcement regime at Parking Services continued to lie and further obtained money by deception.
The more this shambles continues the more evidence of this deceitful behaviour by Sunderland City Council and NCP will be uncovered.
Sunderland Echo
Saturday August 27th 2005
Refund just the ticket for Jimmy
GRANDAD Jimmy Conway was thrilled when he received an unexpected refund on his doormat.
Jimmy, who has 10 grandchildren, had given up the parking fine as a "bad loss" after he was given a £30 fine for parking in a taxi bay in Southwick a year ago.Now the 59-year-old former Army physical training instructor is one of the first of 700 motorists to receive a refund after a blunder by traffic bosses at Sunderland Council.Bosses admitted last week that they had no authority to issue the tickets because they do not have the correct legal orders in place to enforce parking restrictions in taxi ranks.
Mr Conway, of Broadsheath Terrace, Southwick, is a disabled driver and holds the necessary badge, which he displays in the front window of his Ford Escort.He suffers from the lung wasting disease emphysema, which he claims was caused by his service in the Gulf War of 1991.
He said: "I got the ticket about a year ago when I was shopping at Southwick Green."There was a taxi in the disabled parking bay near Kwik Save waiting for a customer so I just pulled up behind it. I never even gave a thought about it being a taxi rank."
Mr Conway says he only spent about 10 minutes shopping but returned to find a parking ticket on the windscreen of his Escort."I was fuming, absolutely fuming," he said. "I had my blue badge on display so the parking attendant could see it."But they paid absolutely no attention to me whatsoever. It was as if I wasn't there."Mr Conway then contacted the council to protest about his ticket but decided not to take the matter to an appeal after being told why he had been fined.
But after hearing about the blunder, which was reported by The Echo on Wednesday last week, he rang the council again and found out his was one of 700 tickets issued in error."I was just elated," Mr Conway said. "I really felt I'd won. I'm just so pleased they were proven wrong."But I'm disgusted with the whole situation. I feel the council is getting money for absolutely nothing."I know the wardens are only doing their job but half the time they look at you as if you're nobody."
Sunderland Council estimates it will have to pay back about £21,000 in fines issued wrongly.
27 August 2005
Friday, August 26, 2005
More questions for Sunderland Council...Who knew? That is the big question
Who knew?
Who is responsible?
Is it malfeasance (deliberately committing the act) or misfeasance (through ignorance or stupidity)?
Will there be more serious charges of obtaining money by deception?
What other offences have been committed under the Theft (Amendment) Act 1996?
The clock is ticking ... the NCP regime is on borrowed time ... more to be revealed.
Philip Browning
City Treasurer's Department
Sunderland City Council
Civic Centre
Sunderland
SR2 7DN
Phil,
Further to our telephone conversation (1.50pm Friday 26th August 2005) I would be grateful for a response to the following questions ( obviously the questions to the City Treasurer are dependent on the answers from Parking Services to questions 1-7):
Questions for Parking Services / City Solicitor
1. Can the Council confirm that on or around November 2003 Parking Services / NCP / Sunderland Council became aware that they had been issuing tickets to Disabled Motorists / Disability Badge Holders in Loading Bays unlawfully?
2. How was it brought to your attention and who was made aware?
3. Why did you not immediately make this public and offer to refund the money?
4. Did Sunderland Council issue a notice to NCP to desist from issuing further tickets as they had no lawful authority to do so as the offence committed was one of obstruction under Section 137 of the 1980 Highways Act and not covered by the 1991 Road Traffic Act, therefore the Parking Attendants had no powers to issue such tickets?
If so, who issued the notice and to whom?
5. Can you confirm the number of tickets that had been issued by Parking Attendants prior to you becoming aware that they had been issued unlawfully and the number that have been issued since? Can you also confirm the Offence Code?
6. Can you please provide a full list of all instances where Sunderland Council have been made aware of incorrect legislation and incorrect signage and what actions have been taken? If no action has been taken to correct the legislation or the signage were explicit instructions issued to NCP and their Parking Attendants to desist from issuing tickets for the same offence?
7. Are there any other mistakes, errors, inaccuracies that Parking Services are aware of but have not yet made public with regard to the parking regime in operation?
8. Can you please provide all the information (under the Freedom of Information Act 2000) of all the evidence, including consultations, supplied to the Secretary of State with regard to Statutory Instrument 2002 No. 3266 The Road Traffic (Permitted Parking Area and Special Parking Area) (City of Sunderland) Order 2002 and all communications and discussions between Sunderland City Council and the Secretary of State regarding Sunderland City Council's parking regime from 1999 to present day?
9. How did the failure to implement a Taxi Rank Order come to notice in 2003?
10. Can you please provide a copy of the notice sent to NCP or minutes of any meeting with NCP officials on or around 31st October 2003?
11. Why was no decision made in November 2003 to immediately issue refunds regarding monies unlawfully obtained in relation to the failure to implement the Taxi Rank Orders?
12. Why after nearly two years have the correct Taxi Rank Orders not been put in place?
13. Are you going to refer the matter to the Police for investigation? If not, why not?
14. Are you going to ask the District Auditor to conduct a full investigation into the Parking Services / NCP operation? If not, why not?
15. Can you please provide copies (under the Freedom of Information Act 2000) details of all communications, written, e-mail and telephone calls between Sunderland City Council and the National Parking Adjudication Service?
16. Under the Data Protection Act ( for the name Neil Herron and the address 12 Frederick Street Sunderland, SR1 1NA and/or 39 The Westlands, Sunderland, SR4 7RP) can you provide details of all communications, written, e-mail and telephone between the following departments Sunderland City Council Solicitor's Office, Development and Regeneration (including Parking Services) and the City Treasurer's office, and bewteen any of thses departments and NCP?
Questions to the City Treasurer
16. If any of the questions above reveal further errors by Sunderland City Council's Parking regime can you please provide details for each of the financial years (2002-3 / 2003-4 / 2004-5) for the amount of monies received from Parking Fines for the offences detailed above?
17. I relation to the income of £22,240 (2003-4) and £630 (2004-5) when were you ( City Treasurer's Department) first made aware that these monies had been obtained unlawfully as the result of Sunderland City Council's failure to put any Taxi Rank Orders in place?
18. Have you been made aware of any other monies unlawfully received since the inception of the 'decriminalised' parking regime?
19. Can you please provide details of the income received by Sunderland City Council from Code 45 offences in the financial year 2002-3?
Further questions will obviously arise dependent on the answers received and as more evidence of malpractice comes to light.
Many thanks for your prompt attention and professionalism in response to all enquiries to date.
Yours sincerely,
Neil Herron
cc. Bob Rayner, City Solicitor
cc. Earl Belshaw, Parking Services
cc. Phil Barrett, Director of Development and Regeneration
cc. Cameron Waddle, Audit Commission
Who is responsible?
Is it malfeasance (deliberately committing the act) or misfeasance (through ignorance or stupidity)?
Will there be more serious charges of obtaining money by deception?
What other offences have been committed under the Theft (Amendment) Act 1996?
The clock is ticking ... the NCP regime is on borrowed time ... more to be revealed.
Philip Browning
City Treasurer's Department
Sunderland City Council
Civic Centre
Sunderland
SR2 7DN
Phil,
Further to our telephone conversation (1.50pm Friday 26th August 2005) I would be grateful for a response to the following questions ( obviously the questions to the City Treasurer are dependent on the answers from Parking Services to questions 1-7):
Questions for Parking Services / City Solicitor
1. Can the Council confirm that on or around November 2003 Parking Services / NCP / Sunderland Council became aware that they had been issuing tickets to Disabled Motorists / Disability Badge Holders in Loading Bays unlawfully?
2. How was it brought to your attention and who was made aware?
3. Why did you not immediately make this public and offer to refund the money?
4. Did Sunderland Council issue a notice to NCP to desist from issuing further tickets as they had no lawful authority to do so as the offence committed was one of obstruction under Section 137 of the 1980 Highways Act and not covered by the 1991 Road Traffic Act, therefore the Parking Attendants had no powers to issue such tickets?
If so, who issued the notice and to whom?
5. Can you confirm the number of tickets that had been issued by Parking Attendants prior to you becoming aware that they had been issued unlawfully and the number that have been issued since? Can you also confirm the Offence Code?
6. Can you please provide a full list of all instances where Sunderland Council have been made aware of incorrect legislation and incorrect signage and what actions have been taken? If no action has been taken to correct the legislation or the signage were explicit instructions issued to NCP and their Parking Attendants to desist from issuing tickets for the same offence?
7. Are there any other mistakes, errors, inaccuracies that Parking Services are aware of but have not yet made public with regard to the parking regime in operation?
8. Can you please provide all the information (under the Freedom of Information Act 2000) of all the evidence, including consultations, supplied to the Secretary of State with regard to Statutory Instrument 2002 No. 3266 The Road Traffic (Permitted Parking Area and Special Parking Area) (City of Sunderland) Order 2002 and all communications and discussions between Sunderland City Council and the Secretary of State regarding Sunderland City Council's parking regime from 1999 to present day?
9. How did the failure to implement a Taxi Rank Order come to notice in 2003?
10. Can you please provide a copy of the notice sent to NCP or minutes of any meeting with NCP officials on or around 31st October 2003?
11. Why was no decision made in November 2003 to immediately issue refunds regarding monies unlawfully obtained in relation to the failure to implement the Taxi Rank Orders?
12. Why after nearly two years have the correct Taxi Rank Orders not been put in place?
13. Are you going to refer the matter to the Police for investigation? If not, why not?
14. Are you going to ask the District Auditor to conduct a full investigation into the Parking Services / NCP operation? If not, why not?
15. Can you please provide copies (under the Freedom of Information Act 2000) details of all communications, written, e-mail and telephone calls between Sunderland City Council and the National Parking Adjudication Service?
16. Under the Data Protection Act ( for the name Neil Herron and the address 12 Frederick Street Sunderland, SR1 1NA and/or 39 The Westlands, Sunderland, SR4 7RP) can you provide details of all communications, written, e-mail and telephone between the following departments Sunderland City Council Solicitor's Office, Development and Regeneration (including Parking Services) and the City Treasurer's office, and bewteen any of thses departments and NCP?
Questions to the City Treasurer
16. If any of the questions above reveal further errors by Sunderland City Council's Parking regime can you please provide details for each of the financial years (2002-3 / 2003-4 / 2004-5) for the amount of monies received from Parking Fines for the offences detailed above?
17. I relation to the income of £22,240 (2003-4) and £630 (2004-5) when were you ( City Treasurer's Department) first made aware that these monies had been obtained unlawfully as the result of Sunderland City Council's failure to put any Taxi Rank Orders in place?
18. Have you been made aware of any other monies unlawfully received since the inception of the 'decriminalised' parking regime?
19. Can you please provide details of the income received by Sunderland City Council from Code 45 offences in the financial year 2002-3?
Further questions will obviously arise dependent on the answers received and as more evidence of malpractice comes to light.
Many thanks for your prompt attention and professionalism in response to all enquiries to date.
Yours sincerely,
Neil Herron
cc. Bob Rayner, City Solicitor
cc. Earl Belshaw, Parking Services
cc. Phil Barrett, Director of Development and Regeneration
cc. Cameron Waddle, Audit Commission
Sunderland Council's Parking Regime Going Through a Bad Spell
After a week of embarrassing admissions about acting unlawfully, with more serious allegations of cover-ups to follow, perhaps the Leader of the Council will be the first to re-sign or is that resign?
House of Common Library - Bill of Rights and Metric Martyrs
House of Common Library - Bill of Rights
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
