More refunds to come ... this time Leicester City Council

If they are marking the bays 'so that they are clearer' according to the council's statement then there should be no alteration to the format. Anyone with pre and post photographs please forward them. We are building up evidence against many authorities.
Thanks also to council officials and Civil Enforcement Officers who continue to forward information of deliberate misconduct by colleagues. We can reassure you and others that such matters will be treated in the strictest confidence.

Drivers may get tickets refund over parking bay errors
Leicester Mercury
Wednesday, June 24, 2009,

Drivers given parking tickets may be able to claim a refund after it emerged the wrong measurements had been used for parking bays.
Leicester City Council workers are remarking many of the 240 bays in the city centre.
However, the authority has insisted it is only doing the work to make the bays clearer, and not because they are wrong.
It comes after a driver successfully appealed against a ticket he was given in a loading bay in the city because, he said, the dimensions of the space did not meet legal requirements.
The Leicester Mercury carried out its own checks on five random bays in the St George's area and found all were incorrectly marked out.

Under the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions Act 2002, lines marking out a pay-and-display bay must be 60cm long.
However, a slight leeway is allowed with gaps of a minimum of 60cm and maximum of 90cm between each one. However, in the city centre, several are not marked out in that way, which experts say makes them unenforceable. Therefore, tickets handed out are invalid.
See measures for Pay and Display bays
Measures for Disabled bays
Measures for split Pay and display bays
The council. however, said if the experts' comments led people to believe they could get their parking fines overturned, that would be "raising expectations which will almost certainly prove to be unreasonable".

Richard Bentley, a former North Yorkshire police officer, is now an expert witness on the issue.
He said: "The format for parking bays is set out in law and those laws cannot be ignored.
"A mistake in law means any money they have taken in those bays has to be repaid. Any tickets issued must also be repaid.
"Put simply, if the lines are wrong the fine is wrong."
Mr Bentley said there was no time limited on appealing against tickets handed out in incorrect bays.
It is not known how many people might be able to claim refunds on tickets given since the city took over parking from the police in January, 2007, but it could be thousands.

Between July 2007 and July 2008, the latest figures show more than 62,000 fines were issued in the city and drivers handed over about £2.7m.
It is also not clear how many of the bays are incorrectly marked, but the council said it was repainting up to 95 per cent.
The bays in question are disabled spaces, loading bays and on-street pay-and-display spaces.
City council traffic manager Andy Thomas said: "A person argued a loading bay was incorrectly marked. It was not contested because the issue was ambiguous and not because we recognised we were wrong.
"This work has not been prompted by any appeal.
"My main concern is all bays are clearly and accurately marked. While we are repainting, we will also check they are correct."
Mr Thomas said if any bay was wrong – adding he did not know of any – the council could rebuff appeals because there was "clear intent" to police parking.

Parking rule expert Barrie Segal, founder of AppealNow.com which has successfully appealed 50,000 parking tickets across the country, said that argument was "rubbish".
He said: "This argument that because there is intent to police bays, even if they are wrong, is the same rubbish councils trot out in these situations."
Mr Segal said the fact the council did not contest the appeal against the loading bay ticket "shows there is clearly something a miss".
He said: "They are measuring and remarking all of them, which suggests to me they are not sure if they are right.''

When the Mercury put its measurements and the arguments of the parking experts to the council, a spokesman said: "If people feel they have been harshly treated, our advice is that they should register a complaint via the council's normal complaints procedure."

PAID A PCN in an incorrectly marked bay?
ASSISTANCE
Click on here to open up a Leicester City Council complaint form
Complaint text:
It appears that the bay in which I received my Penalty Charge Notice was not marked in accordance with the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002. The use of non-prescribed signs is unlawful and therefore all monies derived from such a mistake in law are recoverable under the principle established in Woolwich Equitable Building Society v The Inland Revenue Commissioners [1993].
Under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 I would like copies of any internal communications the council holds with regard to the enforcement of non-prescribed bays and the instructions (including copies of any TSRGD 2002 drawings) given to contractors detailing what 'corrections' are to be undertaken.
Under the Data Protection Act I would like details of all PCNs issued to my vehicle(s) including any Parking Attendant or Civil Enforcement Officer notes, and any information the council holds on known signing deficiencies in the areas where my PCN(s) was/were issued.
Resolution text:
I would like a full refund of all monies paid for all PCNs issued to vehicle registration number...................(insert vehicle reg in bays which were not marked in accordance with TSRGD 2002 details)

Motorists are about to bite back ... as predicted.

...and as they prepare to do so more evidence is coming in from council officers and parking enforcement personnel detailing what can only be described as unlawful activity. We can accept people making mistakes ... but as soon as that mistake is spotted and covered up to allow unlawful enforcement to continue then that is when it becomes criminal.

We understand that a number of Police forces are going to be forced to initiate criminal investigations once evidence is placed before them.

Refunds to come in Camden, Kingston, Harrow and Merton for motorists who have been penalised with unlawful PCNs.

All of this was forecast in the last Tonight Special we did following the introduction of the 2004 Traffic Management Act on 31st March 2008. All the councils who have thought that they were above the law need to think again.

Whistleblowers ... keep the information coming.

On the unlawful credit card charges issued by the four London Boroughs named above ... it is understood that London Council's Nick Lester has reminded councils that they must not levy such charges. It follows that if such charges are unlawful then, according to Mr. Lester

Another one bites the dust ...now Merton Council

Another Council guilty of adding an unlawful Credit Card surcharge to their Penalty Charge Notice. We will help you get you money back for any PCNs paid in Camden, Merton, Harrow and Kingston. Just e-mail enquiries@parkingappeals.co.uk for more information.

Meanwhile, since we went live on the BBC last week another council has confirmed that it has suspended its credit card charge. Merton Council's press release is below (seems that they have missed a bit ... the bit about how you get your money back!) :

Merton Council suspends credit card surcharges
12 June 2009
Merton Council has suspended its credit card surcharges on Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs) for parking and bus lane offences. This follows concerns raised by the Parking and Traffic Appeals Service (PATAS) about the legality of a 1.35% surcharge added to all credit card payments of PCNs. The council introduced credit card surcharges on the 15 April this year to recover costs imposed by the credit card companies. In addition to using a credit card, those looking to pay their Penalty Charge Notice can also pay with cash, cheque or debit card.

Paying within 14 days of receiving the penalty charge notice reduces the charge by half.

Information on paying parking Penalty Charge Notices can be found at: www.merton.gov.uk/living/transport-streets/parking/pcn/paying_pcn.htm

Merton Council's cabinet member for finance and regeneration Councillor Diane Neil Mills said: "As soon as we learned of the potential problem concerning the surcharges, we took action and suspended surcharges on credit card payments for Penalty Charge Notices for parking and bus lane offences. We are investigating the situation with urgency and would ask everyone to bear with us as we work on the necessary next steps.'

Chideock Speed Camera Refunds

For all those who think that you are not entitled to refunds when a Traffic Order is defective read the press release below ...

Meanwhile, just a reminder to all those councils who regularly read this blog ... Regulation 18 Local Authority Traffic Order Procedures ... if your signs are not correct then your traffic order is not in force. All monies derived from unlawfully marked locations will have to be refunded. The Chideock case wipes out the myth that is chanted regularly by Council press officers and Nick Lester of London Councils ... 'that if you paid the ticket you accepted the contravention.'


WRONG ... and more and more motorists are ready to start legal actions for restitution.



Chideock Speed Camera Partnership Update

Chideock Update - 19th June 2009

****PRESS RELEASE****

Technicality in the Traffic Regulation Order Relating
to the A35 in Chideock, West Dorset
This announcement follows the case of Regina v Dawe (see ‘Notes to Editors’ for details) and the Crown Court judgment that the Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) relating to the village of Chideock in West Dorset was defective due to a historical clerical error in the street name in the TRO.

The Dorset Safety Camera Partnership (DSCP) can confirm that it has secured agreement regarding dealing with speeding offences detected by the safety camera monitoring westbound traffic on the A35 in Chideock prior to 2007.
Each case will be reviewed individually and may result in motorists detected travelling over 30mph on the westbound safety camera in Chideock, prior to 2007, having the fixed penalty payment from this offence refunded and the related penalty points removed from their driving licence, if still valid.

Adrian Whiting, Assistant Chief Constable for Dorset Police and the Chair of the Dorset Strategic Road Safety Partnership, comments:
"Chideock is a small rural community with a main road running through the middle of the village and we are reassured that no one has tried to suggest that the speed limit should be anything other than 30mph.
"During the period this safety camera has been in operation it will have reduced drivers’ speeds through the village by acting as a deterrent, which will have helped to safeguard the safety of the people who live in Chideock and other road users. The public should be reassured by the fact that a new TRO is in place and the DSCP has recommenced enforcement there."
The DSCP will be writing to all drivers affected, to inform them of the situation and outline the process to follow if they wish to have their fixed penalty refunded and the related penalty points removed from their driving licence if still valid. Details of the process to follow if drivers think their offence is affected are available on the DSCP website – http://www.dorsetsafetycameras.org.uk/

The Dorset Safety Camera Partnership remains focused on working together to reduce the number of people who are killed or seriously injured on Dorset’s roads as a consequence of both excess and inappropriate speed.
Media Enquiries - please contact Nikki Haine or Matt McKenna on 01425 472330 or email
emily@mckennatownsendpr.com

NOTES TO EDITORS
Background information on the issues relating to the A35 westbound in Chideock and the Crown Court case of Regina v Dawe:
1. In 1997 a Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) relating to the village of Chideock, West Dorset was arranged. The order defined a length of the A35 westbound as subject to a 30mph speed limit. This was necessary as that stretch of road does not have a system of street lighting.
2. The text of the order referred to the A35 junction with "Seatown Road". This was a mistake as the road was then, and still is, correctly named "Duck Street".
3. At approximately 23:15hrs on the 27th October 2005 Mr Dawe was detected speeding by a fixed safety camera, travelling west in the village of Chideock. He was travelling at 41mph in a lorry, passing the houses where the safety camera is located and approaching the village Pubs. He has never disputed this speed, nor suggested it was sensible to drive that fast in the built-up area of the village.
4. He appealed his conviction on the grounds that the 30mph speed limit signs were not of the proper form. On the 26th October 2007 the Crown Court sitting at Dorchester found that the TRO was defective due to the road name issue, and thus the 30mph speed limit could not be enforced at that point on the A35 westbound. Accordingly the Court did not need to assess Mr Dawe’s actual grounds for appeal, and no finding on them was made.
5. Following the Crown Court judgement the organisations which make up the Dorset Safety Camera Partnership have been working with the appropriate Government departments to determine whether this judgement applies to other cases and agree an appropriate process for dealing with these offences.
The Dorset Safety Camera Partnership
The Dorset Safety Camera Partnership, which was set up in August 2002, constitutes a partnership between Dorset County Council, Borough of Poole Council, Bournemouth Borough Council, Dorset Police, NHS South West, Highways Agency, Her Majesty’s Courts Service and the Crown Prosecution Service.
The Partnership, through a combination of measures including education, engineering and enforcement, is working together to reduce the number of people who are killed or seriously injured on Dorset’s roads, as a consequence of both excess and inappropriate speed. It is responsible for the operation and maintenance of fixed site, mobile and red-light junction cameras throughout Dorset.

Massive boost for motorists against unlawful parking fines

High Court boost for Sunderland parking campaigner
Sunderland Echo ... 16 June 2009
By Jane O'Neill

Parking campaigner Neil Herron has been given a boost in his legal battle.
The Sunderland businessman claims parking restrictions in Sunderland city centre are unlawful and has taken the matter to London's High Court.Mr Herron, of The Westlands, is fighting a personal battle against a number of parking fines.He also
runs Parking Appeals Ltd, a company which helps those who feel they have been on the wrong end of a parking attendant's decision.

Now a High Court judge has given him permission to continue his fight against what he claims are illegal parking restrictions. Speaking after the hearing, Mr Herron said he was ready for a "David and Goliath" struggle. "This is fantastic news, not just for Sunderland, but for UK motorists who are facing an uphill struggle against local authorities." Finally we have this matter before the highest court in the land and we are looking forward to a judicial ruling on matters that many, many motorists have complained about."

Lawyers for Mr Herron – whose company has registered the personalised number plate F1 NED – yesterday argued that Sunderland city centre's Controlled Parking Zone was unlawful.

Barrister Oliver Mischon, for Mr Herron, also said that the National Parking Appeals Service, where Mr Herron has attempted to have decisions of Sunderland City Council overturned, has the "appearance of bias". He said that Mr Herron's right to a fair trial – as enshrined by Article 6 of the Human Rights Act – had been violated. Mr Mischon told the court that, under the strict letter of the law, controlled parking zones are not allowed to have certain line markings or signage. It is Mr Mischon's case that, because those "signs and lines" are in place in Sunderland, parking restrictions governed by the use of single yellow lines are "unenforceable". Describing controlled parking zones as "extremely confusing", Mr Mischon added that they have been put in place all over the country in a bid to tackle cars being parked in residential areas, but have left many motorists fuming because restrictions are not clearly set out. The barrister added that the National Parking Appeals Service was not "independent and impartial" because it represented every local authority with controlled parking zones, including Sunderland City Council.

Expressing "real doubts" about its independence, Mr Mischon added that it was funded by money raised by parking fines.Mr Justice Keith agreed that Mr Herron had an "arguable" case and granted him permission to pursue his judicial review challenge at a more in-depth hearing, a date for which has yet to be set.

CAMDEN ...Many parking tickets 'unlawful' BBC reports

Many parking tickets 'unlawful'
BBC News24
Thursday 11th June 2009

Thousands of drivers in London may be affected by the ruling
Thousands of parking tickets paid by credit card could be cancelled after a council's charges were ruled unlawful.
Camden Council has been charging 1.3% extra for tickets paid by credit card.
But a firm claimed the extra charge is unfair - and the Parking and Traffic Appeals Service (Patas) agreed, saying the entire ticket should be cancelled.
The ruling could also affect the boroughs of Harrow and Merton, which also charge extra to pay tickets by credit card. Camden Council may appeal.

Harrow has been charging people extra to use credit card for 18 months.

Camden Council are behaving like the Sherriff of Nottingham
Richard Chaumerton, driver

In January, London General Transport Services Limited was given a £120 penalty charge notice by Camden Council.
But the company appealed, claiming it was unfair to charge an extra 1.3% for a ticket that they had no choice but to pay.
Patas adjudicator Henry Greenslade agreed.
Referring to the rules by which councils must abide, he said: "The words 'authorities cannot justify applying surcharges in relation to credit cards' could not be clearer.
"Authorities cannot justify applying surcharges for their use."

'Could be challenged'
He added: "I find the penalty charge in this case did exceed the amount applicable - accordingly, this appeal must be allowed."
If Camden Council is unsuccessful with its appeal, every fine paid by credit card since the 1.3% charge began in January could be challenged.

The council has given out £26m in parking fines this year.

Neil Herron (left) says Camden Council's "greed" may cost them dear.

Builder Richard Chaumerton, 46, from Kentish Town, north west London, is challenging five tickets which he paid by credit card.

He said: "It's a disgusting, vexatious state of affairs.
"Camden Council are behaving like the Sherriff of Nottingham - they think they can make up all these charges, regardless of what the law says."

Parking campaigner Neil Herron, also battling tickets on grounds of the credit card charge, said: "Out of greed this council has been charging an extra 1.3% - it could end up costing them £12.5 million."

A Camden Council spokeswoman said: "We sought independent legal advice when introducing credit card charges and we remain satisfied this is sound advice.
"The detail will be reviewed by our lawyers and the council will take a decision once we have received advice.
"In the interim, Camden has stopped the credit card fee."


STOP PRESS
Camden, Merton, Kingston and Harrow have now withhdrawn the Credit Card Surcharge. If you have had a Penalty Charge Notice in any of these boroughs and want to know more and want to know whether you can get a refund just drop us an e-mail at enquiries@parkingappeals.co.uk
NB. You need not have paid by credit card to seek a refund.

Car parking fiasco...want your money back?

Anybody who has been fined and wants more information contact enquiries@parkingappeals.co.uk

The Comet

A PARKING attendant firm has continued to charge fees and issue fines at a town centre car park despite their contractors going bust six months ago.

The car park at the back of Woolworths in Hitchin has continued to be run by Euro Car Parks (ECP) despite the former retailer going into administration in January and closing the store. Deloitte, Woolworths' administrators, said ECP no longer has a contract to operate on the site. Deloitte spokesman, Harry Cazi, said: "I spoke to Euro Car Parks today (Tuesday). We have certainly not instructed them to do this. I told them that we don't require their services." Angry Hitchin worker, Wayne Scott, contacted The Comet after his fiancée was asked by an attendant whether she had a ticket.

He said he saw two other people being fined and asked the attendant whether the company still had a contract to work there.

He said: "They are basically scamming people. They shouldn't be working there at all. They are lining their pockets at a time when people can't afford it."

Jim Hunter, director at Gatwards jewellery shop in Market Place, said his colleague Lisa Gatward was fined £50 by ECP in April after not buying a ticket.

He said: "We thought because Woolworths had gone there would be nobody taking money. If they are taking money illegally they should give it back. It is morally wrong, if nothing else." Les Knight, business director at ECP, said he was not aware that parking attendants were still enforcing the regulations, despite acknowledging they still had a working ticket machine and enforcement signs across the car park.

He said: "The agreement with Woolworths was never terminated. We never got an official order to close. We only received an email from the administrators this morning (Wednesday).

"I remember I had a conversation with a colleague, as the new owners are not agreeing anything. I'm a bit surprised actually - it's not what you'd call a big earner anyway.

"We certainly don't have a constant site presence. But we are in business to make money - as all businesses are - I'm not ashamed to say that."

When asked if there was a way drivers could get their money back, Mr Knight said: "No, not really. There are terms and conditions displayed."

The Comet was asked for a breakdown of how much money ECP had taken from the site since Woolworths closed, but we had not received this before going to press.

The company said it had ceased operations on the site as of yesterday (Wednesday) and will remove the ticket machine and signs as a matter of priority.

Over 25,000 parking fines overturned

BBC News
More than 25,000 parking tickets have been successfully challenged since NCP (now known as NSL) took over parking enforcement in NI, it has emerged.
The figure equates to 7.8% of the 327,267 tickets given out between November 2006 and December 2008.
Almost 39,000 of these tickets were challenged and the challenge was accepted in 25,484 cases.
The most common reasons for successful challenges were the production of a valid parking ticket or a Blue-Badge.
The figures were released by Regional Development Minister Conor Murphy in response to an Assembly question tabled by DUP MLA Simon Hamilton.
The Strangford representative said people should be aware of their right to appeal a parking ticket.
"Through constituency experience and working with people in the local area, I encouraged many of them who I felt had been unfairly treated to challenge, and was noticing a fair few were actually having their appeals upheld," he said.
"I find it interesting that just quite so many people who are challenging are actually finding that the ticket is overturned."
Tim Cowen of NSL said the vast vast majority of successful appeals concerned mitigating circumstances that attendants couldn't have known about.
He added that Roads Service, who run the appeals process, show "a great deal of discretion."

Camden Parking Refunds ......

BBC News reports 'Many Parking Fines 'unlawful' '

Builder Richard Chaumeton states:
"Camden Council are behaving like the Sherriff of Nottingham"

Looks like the motorsists now have their own Robin Hood.

The question is now 'Will Camden Council do the decent thing and refund everyone who has been fined unlawfully?'

Camden's parking tickets ruled illegal

BREAKING NEWS ...

Camden’s Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs) have been ruled unlawful in a recent adjudication due to the fact that they levied a 1.3% Credit Card Surcharge.

We will supply subscribers to http://www.parkingappeals.co.uk/ with a FULL DEFENCE (100% money back guarantee on your subscription if we are not successful) for PCNs issued since 5th January 2009 to 10th June 2009.
Some of the PCNs issued AFTER that will also be invalid as Camden are continuing to use old paperwork despite the fact that they suspended the charge on 9th June 2009.
Here is an extract from the Parking And Traffic Appeals Service decision:

















And here is an extract from the legislation …









HAVE YOU PAID A CAMDEN PCN?

Whether you have paid by credit card, cheque or cash we will assist you with recovering your money whether you are a business or individual. Simply contact us at http://www.parkingappeals.co.uk/ or e-mail enquiries@parkingappeals.co.uk titled 'CAMDEN PCN'

NB. ALL PROFITS WILL BE USED TO HELP SUPPORT THE MOTORISTS LEGAL CHALLENGE FUND

EVANS DECISION

Croydon Council parking team caught breaking rule they were enforcing

How many more councils have to be exposed before someone takes action?
There needs to be a change in the legislation to have an independent watchdog with powers to censure and fine local authorities where necessary to prevent this licensed mugging!

This is Croydon
Croydon Council parking team caught breaking rule they were enforcing
Saturday, May 16, 2009

Council parking spies have been blasted as hypocrites for breaking the very rules they were supposed to be enforcing.
A car with a CCTV camera attached to the roof parked on double yellow lines - to try and catch drivers illegally parked on double yellow lines.
The Croydon Council Smart car was caught in central Croydon by shopkeeper Praduman Bhimjiani.
His photographic evidence prompted the council's parking chief to brand the behaviour "unacceptable".

Councillor Phil Thomas explained that council staff were undertaking surveillance work after complaints from a bus company that people were parking on double yellow lines in the road, making it difficult for buses to manoeuvre around them.

He said: "We will investigate the complaint that we were doing it illegally."
But he admitted the evidence appeared damning and added: "We've got to hold our hands up."

Mr Bhimjiani runs NN Confectioners, in Park Street, where the picture was taken - and where he himself was given two parking tickets in January.
The 55-year-old, from Ellesmere Drive, Sanderstead said: "We get a lot of hassle from these people.
"It's not fair on the public really because it's just generating revenue for the council.
"It's also hypocritical. They shouldn't be parking on a double yellow line."
Mr Bhimjiani believes the council should not be excused from breaking the rules.
"If the law is for everybody they should get the penalty as well," he said.

Cllr Thomas confirmed the CCTV car had been in Park Street at around 10.30am last Wednesday (May 6) when the photo was taken.
He added: "It's not acceptable for our staff to be parking on double yellow lines when we ask the public not to do it themselves."

Clampers ... AA's Edmund King's letter to the Times pulls no punches

Sir,

It is hardly “curious” that the AA has declined to join the British Parking Association board when we still have serious issues with its toothless code and some of its members (letter, May 4). We do not want to give credibility to a system we think will not work and do not want to sit alongside a clamping company that has caused anguish and unfair financial loss to some of our members.

The AA did not need to await an internal investigation into complaints about a BPA member when it was absolutely clear that the company had acted unfairly. Indeed, our pressure has already led to a refund in one case before the BPA has taken any action.

We are pleased that the Government is taking more action to regulate rogue clampers but it is clear that without an independent appeals system the same vested interest will dominate. If we cannot produce a fair system, then clamping on private land should be outlawed as “extortion and theft” as it was in Scotland in 1992.

Edmund King

President, Automobile Association
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/letters/article6215960.ece

BBC Report here

NCP Services driven into the red as debts pile up

NCP Services driven into the red as debts pile up
Simon English
02.04.09

NCP Services, the parking-tickets and car-clamping business owned by private-equity house 3i, has plunged into a loss after running up hefty debts.

Accounts just filed at Companies House show that the firm has accrued losses of £23 million, partly thanks to a £103 million debt pile.
It is paying almost £10 million a year just to service this debt.

A note in the accounts reveals that it recently agreed revisions to its senior debt facility, although the company strongly denies suggestions it was close to breaching any of its covenants.

The company was spun out of National Car Parks in 2007 and relies largely on contracts from local councils such as Westminster. It has deals with 60 councils at present.

Alongside the traffic-wardens business, it operates six London bus routes and runs a debt-recovery arm.
A new management team was parachuted in last year to overhaul the company, since when it claims to have turned in a strong performance.

Chief financial officer Steve Dolton said: "We have refinanced on excellent commercial terms. We have turned the business around and are looking to expand. The business is extremely solvent."
The company has just bought 17 new buses - a sign of its own confidence in the future, says Dolton.
Contracts with Camden and Westminster are up for tender next year, with NCP optimistic that it is in a good position to retain the business.
"I would say our relationship with our customers is very good," says Dolton.

The debt is equally held by Royal Bank of Canada and Lloyds Banking Group. Dolton says the banks are happy with the finances and are not applying any pressure for an early repayment of the debt.
A hedge against interest-rate movements cost the firm £2.9 million.
According to the accounts, the highest-paid director - assumed to be chief executive Mark Underwood - got £450,000 last year.
He joined the company last June from the Geo Group.
NCP Services was founded in 2000 to take advantage of the increasing demand for parking enforcement services from local councils.
It is majority owned by private-equity house 3i, while management has a minority holding.
Former parent company NCP is now owned by Australia's Macquarie Bank, which bought the business from 3i in 2007 for £790 million.

The traffic services business has faced trade union disputes in the recent past, with GMB in particular riled by what it sees as asset-stripping and profiteering by 3i.

Saved from a driving ban by a burger and a boffin

I hope you are outraged by the statements by the Police and the Safety Camera partnership. We used to live in a country where you were innocent until proven guilty by a court!
Dr. Phillip Tann's GPS tracking device could have proved that the journey was impossible in the time between the two speed camera flashes ... yet 'back office procedural issues led to them dropping the case.' How convenient. Is the back office fit for purpose or have others suffered similar injustices?


'Speeding' woman is let off by police
Apr 16 2009

by Sam Wood
The Journal

A HUNGRY woman caught speeding twice by the same camera in just over three minutes, despite stopping off for a McDonald’s in between, has been let off her fine and penalty points by the police.

On August 22 last year, Gill Whitmore was twice clocked by a mobile camera going at 38mph in a 30 zone on Ryhope Road in Sunderland.
She had travelled a distance of around three-quarters of a mile up and down the road and bought a snack at the Drive Thru hatch in three minutes, 23 seconds, according to the police speed gun.
Miss Whitmore, a single mother from Waldron Square in Hendon, contested the tickets and points.
And Northumbria Police have now written to her to say they have decided to let her off with a warning.
The 45-year-old, who works as a kitchen assistant at South Moor Secondary School, said: “It’s such a relief seeing these charges dropped. I have been beside myself with worry.
“The journey in between the two speed camera flashes could not have been done in the timeframe indicated by the police evidence and I can now stop worrying. It is just impossible that I could have driven that distance and been to McDonald’s in that amount of time.
“I had nipped out to get some food for my kids and then I decided to get a sausage and egg McMuffin from McDonald’s.”

The police said the dropping of the ticket was nothing to do with the timing of the offences, or because of problems with the camera.
Pamela Oliver, co-ordinator of Northumbria Police’s Fixed Penalty Unit said: “These particular cases were dropped due to a back office procedural issue. They were not dropped because of any doubts over the timing of the offences, which were initially raised and investigated.”

The letter from police to Miss Whitmore said: “Following consideration of this matter it has been decided a warning is an appropriate action in the circumstances. However the details of the offence have been recorded.
“No further action will be taken. However the same lenient steps will not be taken in future.”

Last night Neil Herron, who has tested the route with special tracking equipment designed by Dr Phillip Tann, whose speeding case was dropped by Sunderland magistrates in 2007, said:

“These allegations have not been proven in a court of law and the police should not be issuing such threatening and intimidatory communications. It is outrageous that they have set themselves up as judge and jury. Is it any wonder that motorists are becoming increasingly sceptical that speed cameras are nothing more than a stealth tax.
“How many other motorists are afforded the ‘luxury’ of a warning instead of a fine and points?”

Jeremy Forsberg, of the Northumbria Safer Roads Initiative, said: “The cameras have not been proved to be at fault this case, they are still very reliable. Hopefully Miss Whitmore will be more careful in future.”

Invention to reduce parking tickets for the pub trade

Hopefully people can now see that the intention and ultimate aim is to create an intelligent, interactive parking environment based on co-operation and efficient kerbside management rather than draconian enforcement for revenue generation. Hopefully other councils will now start to recognise that commercial vehicles should not be bearing a Penalty Charge Notice cost burden simply for going about their daily business in the most expedient fashion.

The future is to work towards good practice on all sides but to do that there needs to be a massive overhaul of the system. One of the first steps is reported below:

North invention to make life easier for pub trade
Apr 16 2009
by Andrew Mernin,
The Journal
VEHICLE-tracking technology designed by a North East scientist will now be used in London’s pub trade to help stop beer delivery drivers getting parking tickets.
Last year, North East inventor Dr Phillip Tann and Neil Herron – a well-known regional campaigner for motorists hit by parking and speeding fines – launched Fleetm8 on the back of Dr Tann’s groundbreaking vehicle- tracking system.

The technology allows users to track the location of any vehicle and also its historic location, enabling fleet operators to view performance and make decisions in real time.
It has since won a deal to be trialled on buses in India as part of a £17m government transport project and has now been adapted for use in the pub trade and will be trialled in the capital by the City of Westminster Council.

The South Tyneside business came up with the new system after discussions with the Brewery Logistics Group in which they bemoaned the fact that, in central London, there is limited car parking and kerb space to facilitate delivery lorries.

This means that drivers are often forced to park in contravention of a parking or loading restriction, which leads to hefty fines – the annual cost to BLG members is around £3m.
With Fleetm8’s technology, a message will be sent to Westminster Council ahead of a driver’s delivery to a particular pub to request short-term exemption from parking restrictions outside the premises.

This will automatically be granted through a server held at the council, who will create a temporary, ‘virtual’ loading bay outside the pub and will also alert parking attendants in the area, via their handheld computers, not to issue tickets to the delivery vehicle.
To quicken the delivery time, the intelligent system will also send a Bluetooth message to the pub alerting staff to open the cellar doors ahead of the vehicle’s arrival.

Neil Herron, who has become recognised nationally as a campaigner for parking disputes under his organisation Parking Appeals, said the trial in London showed forward-thinking on behalf of council bosses.
“We approached them with the idea of trialling new technology which could assist the brewers making deliveries more efficiently by reducing the kerb time and reduce their administrative burden for dealing with parking tickets by producing an exemption scheme for firms adhering to a set protocol and using the new technology.
“We are working on the project with Tradeteam who are part of DHL and who deliver beer to many of London’s pubs.
“Once we have created the model it can then be expanded to other sectors of the freight transport industry and applied in other local authority areas.”

Dr Tann’s vehicle-tracking technology first gained national recognition in 2007 when he used the device to avoid a speeding ticket.
Northumbria Police claimed he was doing 42mph in a 30mph zone, however, Dr Tann’s vehicle was fitted with a prototype GPS tracking device which proved otherwise.

The inventor said the deal with Westminster Council could help fuel more far-reaching interest in the system in future.
“This new development will add value especially for those firms operating in the London area. We are really pleased that our North East- based company is being used to solve a London problem and anticipate a great deal of interest.”
The technology has been backed by £60,000 in funding from Newcastle-based North Star Equity Investors (NSEI) which specialises in early stage, high-growth opportunities.
The investment is part of the company’s £12m Proof of Concept fund which targets the pre-seed stage of investment, supporting entrepreneurs with up to £90,000 in investment.

Councils launch parking website ... but they have missed a vital piece of information for the motorist

Doesn't seem to be anything on the site pointing out to the motorist in the clearest terms that PATROL is paid for at the rate of 60p per Penalty Charge Notice and that the PATROL Joint Committee (the councils) appoints the adjudicators and is responsible for their remuneration. It also fails to point out that Manchester City Council is the lead authority.

The next blog post will reveal the answers to some Parliamentary Questions.

At all times what must be borne in mind is that under Article 6(i) ECHR you have the right to be heard by an independent tribunal and that that it is a breach of Article 6 if it is perceived that the tribunal is not independent.

Councils relaunch new and improved parking information site
Hannah Wooderson for 24dash.com
in Communities , Local Government
6th April 2009

A group of over 200 councils have come together to re-launch their public information website today (Monday 6 April) www.patrol-uk.info.

The 200+ councils make up the Joint Committee of England and Wales for the Civil Enforcement of Parking and Traffic Regulations Outside London. Their new-look PATROL site has been improved to take into account the 12-months of user-feedback received since its launch last year, when the Traffic Management Act 2004 came into effect.

PATROL aims to be a one stop shop for motorists, providing clear and accessible information about parking and bus lane regulations, and guiding people through the ensuing, and often complex, enforcement process – a subject of great interest to local residents.The site promotes a ‘pay it or challenge it’ theme, encouraging people to either challenge a notice they believe they have received unfairly or pay early to avoid a larger fine. It also features a useful flowchart, so that people can easily identify where they are in the process.

PATROL, and the Joint Committee which sponsors it, is an excellent example of partnership working from councils. The group is committed to working together to provide consistent information to motorists. The site has a search option, so people can identify whether their local council is part of the scheme, and also includes direct links to local information via council websites, to enable them to check whether particular circumstances apply to their locality.

Chair of the PATROL Joint Committee, Councillor Ken Gregory said: “The PATROL website is an excellent example of how collaboration and partnership working between councils can succeed. The main aim was to present complex information about the enforcement process which is common to all councils and translate this into clear information for motorists. We’re pleased to have received such a lot of useful feedback from motorists and have taken these views on board to inform the redesign.”

PATROL also has a general information section, which provides a series of simple hints and tips for avoiding Penalty Charge Notices.PATROL’s Head of Service, Louise Hutchinson, said: “The PATROL Joint Committee is committed to providing a single point of access for motorists, and we hope that the new-look website will help us to build greater public understanding of parking issues, traffic management and motorists’ rights.”

www.patrol-uk.info

Parking Scandal exposed on the Politics Show

The clip below was from this week's Politics Show ... Hull City Council using parking fines to raise revenue ... Leeds City Council accused by Government officials of fraud and extortion.

Who is going to bring this lawless situation to an end?

Newcastle Council parking blunder brings free parking for motorists

Another council blunders over its parking regulations. This time its Newcastle. At first they denied that there were any problems ... then failed to produce any evidence in Court when Roberto Campoli brought his case.
Then more and more questions were asked and was eventually supplied by the Department for Transport ... which showed there was more to this than meets the eye.

The £30 Fixed Daily Charge signs were being removed and all the bays remarked. Remember that the Special Authorisation for the Fixed Daily Charge signs was revoked in 2001 and 185,000 parking tickets were issued AFTER that. The council claimed that they had counsel's opinion that said otherwise, but communications from the Department for Transport stated that Newcastle should have been fully aware of the consequences of their actions. Looks like someone needs to challenge this in court ... if the council wish to maintain the position that they are correct.

Meanwhile, the remarking of the bays meant that they could not be enforced until the council gets permission. The are moving from criminalised to civil enforcement ... and can only do so if they reassure the DfT that all their signs, lines and traffic orders are correct ... hence the panic to get everything corected.
They had hoped that no-one would notice. Unfortunately for them we did.
So now it is free parking as shown below. However, if you have had a ticket in the last few weeks we would like to hear ...

Newcastle City Council parking loophole lets drivers off hook
Mar 14 2009
by Paul James,
The Journal
LITTLE-KNOWN Government rules have led to a parking free-for-all in the region. Council officials last night admitted they are powerless to enforce regulations governing thousands of parking spaces in the North East.

The rules mean Newcastle City Council is unable to issue parking fines to drivers who park in certain disabled or residential spaces or those allocated for taxis or loading.
It is because council chiefs are preparing for parking enforcement to become a civil, rather then criminal regime, which is expected to be authorised next month.

They have replaced about 3,000 £30 fixed daily charge signs and bay markings across the city in advance of the switch.

But traffic wardens are currently powerless to fine anyone for parking in those bays because the Government is yet to approve the new orders.

Parking campaigners say the council’s admission as a victory for drivers in the city, as well as businesses which will benefit from extra shoppers. But council chiefs last night warned it would be "irresponsible" for people to park in bays meant for disabled people, taxis and for loading.
Parking campaigner Neil Herron, who has previously helped several motorists challenge fines from the £30 signs, said the council was "bang to rights".
Mr Herron said: "We always knew from the outset that this regime was massively flawed, but the council went into a state of denial instead of just accepting it.
"For at least four or five weeks Newcastle businesses are going to benefit and more people are going to come into the city because they’re not going to be punished with parking fines."

The city council said there were "obvious moral issues" with the free parking issue and that "just because people can park in these places, it doesn’t mean that they should".
The council estimates that around 50 loading bays, 100 disabled bays and 50 taxi bays, plus all the city’s residents’ parking spaces, are affected.

Jesmond restaurant Francesca’s, situated within a new residents’ parking scheme, is advertising the free parking in a bid to stop potential customers driving away when they see the road signs.
Boss Giovanni Sardone, whose family have run the business for 25 years, said: "We have regular customers coming from Hexham, Corbridge, all over the place, and they find it hard to get a parking space.
"Customers are saying they can’t find a space and have had to drive away – it’s the major talking point now when people come in.
"We’ve put a big sign in the window to stop people driving away. We think these new rules are going to have a major knock-on effect on the business. We’ve filled 10 pages of a petition – it’s something we really don’t want to happen."

Newcastle Council director of regulatory services and public protection, Stephen Savage, said: "I can confirm that until April 15, when civil parking enforcement is implemented in Newcastle, people who park in disabled bays and other areas like loading bays and taxi ranks cannot be prosecuted."

The complication arises because the council has replaced police signs and markings with its own – meaning that officers can no longer legally enforce the regulations. But the council cannot implement fines either because Government rules state it must give six weeks’ notice of its intent to do so.

Last night, Mr Savage urged drivers to act responsibly.
"There are obvious moral issues here," he said. "Just because people can park in these places it doesn’t mean that they should. It is irresponsible to do so as it affects business and quality of life in the city and directly impacts on vulnerable people in our community.
"Imposing penalties on people who do park in these areas is not a revenue-raising exercise, or something we do out of spite. We do it evenly and without prejudice because it is our job to keep this city moving and make sure people have a convenient, safe and legal place to park."

The Department for Transport confirmed it expected the council to have the necessary powers by April 15.

Westminster parking fines are down by 50 per cent

There are some forward thinking councils who have realised that effective parking enforcement comes from managing the kerbside efficiently. Below is the recent report from Westminster City Council and the reduction in the number of PCNs issued to commercial vehicles is a positive move.

London Informer
The past year has been particularly ambitious for us and has seen some major changes to parking in Westminster.
We have listened to residents and responded by ending the unpopular use of clamping and removal of vehicles.
We have also created more than 2,000 additional, dedicated motorcycle parking bays across the city, and introduced parking cards as an alternative way to pay for parking and are continuing to implement cashless parking across the city.
Further, we have implemented a number of common sense measures.
One of which has resulted in a 50 per cent reduction in the number of tickets issued to commercial vehicles.
Another has given resident permit holders a five-minute allowance to load or unload on single yellow lines.
However, we are not complacent and aim to introduce a number of initiatives to help make parking cheaper, safer and easier in 2009.
These include helping older residents through the provision of discounted parking for carers, providing more spaces for visitors and keeping dropped kerbs free of parked vehicles.
Measures will also be employed to make it easier for businesses to distribute goods and provide essential services across the city and a car club scheme will be implemented as a cheaper and greener alternative to car ownership.
Finally, we know that parking enforcement is not always popular,but with over half-a-million vehicles entering Westminster every day, it is a necessary tool to protect the safety of motorists and pedestrians and to keep traffic moving around the city.
However, we want to ensure that when enforcement is necessary, we are getting it right first time, and if we do get it wrong, that we are using common sense and putting it right quickly.
As the largest parking authority in the UK, Westminster has become the 'blueprint' for improving parking services and we are committed to delivering firm, fair and excellent parking services for all our residents, businesses and visitors.
Cllr Danny Chalkley, Cabinet Member for Environment and Transport
Westminster City Council

Parking problems in Hull ... this is just the beginning

Lead story on Look North ... parking problems in Hull are the tip of the national iceberg.

The Glenn Dickinson Judicial Review could bring the parking industry to a standstill ... a 'ticking time-bomb' according to one source.

Wycombe District parking fines revealed

Bucks Free Press

MOTORISTS have been hit with more than £300,000 worth of fines in four months after Wycombe District Council took control of traffic wardens, it has been revealed.
The council has billed 5,223 drivers since taking over enforcement duties from the police in October, worth £338,410.
Of these just 3,434 tickets have been paid, worth £125,867.

Catherine Spaltion, press officer for the council said as most people paid the fines within 14 days – during a 50 per cent “discount period”. This means the fine actually paid often falls below the amount officially charged by the council.
The full value of each ticket is £50 or £70, depending on the offence.

The council said none of its officers worked on an incentive, commission or target led basis.
It said reasons for unpaid tickets could include a vehicle's owner not being traceable, a disabled driver having been verified, or a successful appeal against the ticket. Some cases may have gone to formal adjudication or even be at the court stage.

Wardens rake in £150,000 for council

This is South Wales


ALMOST £150,000 has been raised by parking fines in Swansea in just five months.
More than 7,000 motorists have received parking fines since the local authority took over responsibility for issuing tickets.

Between September 1 last year and January 31, the council has dished out hefty fines which have seen them cash in £147,919.

However, while the council is receiving money for each ticket issued, a council spokesman said the authority was only responding to people breaking the rules.
He said: "Since taking over civil parking enforcement responsibilities last year we issued 7,106 penalty charge notices because of people parking inconsiderately. If people don't park inconsiderately, they won't receive a penalty charge notice." and we'd be more than happy to issue no such notices."

The income that is generated from the fines is ring-fenced and put back into maintaining the civil parking enforcement service.
Any extra money left over will be ploughed into helping improve transportation services in the city, such as car parks and park and ride.

A council spokesman said: "Our main focus has always been to discourage people from parking inconsiderately and causing an obstruction to pedestrians and other road users and we've received a great deal of support from the public who have contacted us to ask for our civil parking enforcement officers to patrol their areas."

Depending on the severity of the parking offence, some of the tickets issued are £70 and others will be £50. If tickets are paid within 14 days, there is a 50 per cent discount.

But one motorist parking their car in Swansea on Saturday, who did not want to give their name, claimed the fines were just a money-making exercise. for the council.
"I can understand it when someone is parked dangerously on double yellows, but there is just nowhere to park for free anymore in Swansea, and if you need your car in work, you're forced to cough up huge sums every week or gamble on not getting a ticket."

Should a yellow line have a t-bar? Is the adjudication service independent?

Parking adjudicators will have you believe that the law doesn't concern itself with trifles BUT it isn't a trifle when you get walloped for a £120 fine.

However, there is a High Court case pending which could re-establish the rule of law and ensure that local authorities comply with the law. Adjudicators (funded by the local authorities who have repeatedly failed to comply with the law ... the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002) have seized on the phrase 'substantial compliance' with the interpretation that if a sign 'looks' like a sign (or line) then 'no reasonable motorist' could have been misled.

That is not how the law is written. TSRGD 2002 is explicit and sets out the dimensions (and permitted variants) for road traffic signs. Any deviations from prescribed signage requires Special Authorisation from the Secretary of State.

Don't take my word for it ...
Here is the British Parking Association's submission to the House of Commons Transport Committee:
TRAFFIC SIGNS
30. Traffic and parking regulations are given effect by traffic signs and markings. In the UK signs are prescribed precisely in Traffic Signs Regulations and General Direction TSRGD (SI 2002/3113) and if a sign or marking does not comply with TSRGD then the regulation has no effect. We believe that it is important that, particularly for parking, where drivers are expected to comply with regulations, that the precision of signing is preserved and enforced. Where a driver is at risk of a financial penalty, or worse, signs cannot be "about right".

Not convinced?
Check out the statement of the DETR (now the Department for Transport) in relation to the requirement to have t-bars terminating double and single yellow lines reported by the BBC here:

One of the main problems, he claims, is when double yellow lines are painted without a T-bar finishing off the lines at each end.

The Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (DTLR) confirmed that with single or double yellow lines there must be a block painted at a 90-degree angle at the end of the lines.
A spokesman said: "If this end line isn't there then the lines have been laid out incorrectly by the local authority and you would have grounds to challenge the ticket in court."

In the above case North Yorkshire Police admitted:

We have been open and honest about this matter from the beginning and we have admitted we were in the wrong
North Yorkshire Police

One has to ask the question when was the law allowed to be 'dumbed down' and by whom?
Well, it seems to be that adjudicators are applying their own interpretation to the law (TSRGD 2002) ... and just remember that the adjudicators are appointed by the Joint Committee and are remunerated by the Joint Committee.

Who are the Joint Committee? The Joint Committee comprises of members from the councils participating in Civil Parking Enforcement.

To ensure that all the lines and signs comply with the law is an expensive business ... hence the reason for 'dumbing down.'
Apparent bias in the Judicial context. Lord Goff of Chieveley cited the dictum of Blackburn J in R and Rand (1866) LR 1 QB 230, 232:
“Any direct pecuniary interest, however small, in the subject of inquiry, does disqualify a person from acting as a judge in the matter.”

Once it is realised by the motoring public that the 'independent' adjudication services are remunerated on a per ticket basis (60p per PCN in the case of the Traffic Penalty Tribunal) then the more tickets issued the more money they receive.

Successful technical defences based on councils failure to comply with TSRGD 2002 reduce the amount of PCNs that can be issued and enforced.

Any rocket scientists care to comment?

Oh, the case of Glenn Dickinson v Hull City Council has been given leave for Judicial Review on the grounds that the Traffic Penalty Tribunal are not independent and signs must be as prescribed in law. Looks like Herron v The Parking Adjudicator (independence of the Traffic Penalty Tribunal and TSRGD points) and Pendle v The Parking Adjudicator (TSRGD points) are likely to follow the same route after being refused at written stage are now both moving towards an oral hearing.

In the meantime, anyone with a ticket on an incorrectly terminated yellow line or coming before the Traffic Penalty Tribunal and raising concerns over their independence can request that their case be 'stayed' sine die pending the outcome of Dickinson.

Please don't all aspire to be as bad as this ...

Driver wins £20,000 for stress over parking tickets

and sends bailiffs to collect his money!

Daily Mail
By Colin Fernandez

A motorist sued a council for £20,000 over the stress of receiving four parking tickets.
Zun Noon, who refused to pay the four £50 fines, claimed he suffered emotional distress after bailiffs were sent round to reclaim the money.
After a court found in his favour, Mr Noon gave the council a taste of its own medicine and sent his own bailiffs to its offices to collect his damages.

Mr Noon's battle against Newham Council in East London started in October 2007 when he was apparently captured by a council CCTV camera committing the parking offences.
Two more fines arrived the following month, as well as a fourth penalty which was a duplicate of a previous one and was later dropped.
Mr Noon, from Tower Hamlets, was so incensed he launched a counterclaim for emotional distress at Bow County court.
After Newham Council failed to attend the hearing the judge awarded him £20,000 - £5,000 for each ticket.
Bailiffs went to Newham's 'Parking Shop' in East Ham last November to present a 'notice of seizure' and began taking computers and putting them in a van. The council took 30 minutes before paying up.
Si-Ling Pang, a spokeswoman for Newham Council said: 'They were unplugging computers and taking them away. If they'd unplugged the server it would have cost us thousands of pounds worth of damage so we had to pay to stop it.'
The cost to taxpayers has since risen to £27,566.83 including a service charge and costs resulting from the time taken to settle the case.
The council, which says it never received a summons, has since taken the case back to Bow County Court, which ruled in its favour and ordered Mr Noon to repay the money.

City steps up parking fines... to balance the books

Balancing the books?
Thought it was about improving traffic flow and keeping the streets clear of congestion.

Sunderland Echo
By Ross Robertson
Drivers will face steeper fines if they are caught out by parking attendants.
Sunderland City Council is upping parking penalty charges from £60 and £40 to £70 and £50, bringing it in line with other towns and cities in the North East.

Council bosses say the move will prove an ever greater deterrent for parking pests as well as helping them balance the books.

The city's parking service costs £2.7million to run and produces a total income of £2.6million.

The new charges will bring in an extra £53,000 a year if a similar number of motorists are caught breaking parking rules.

The council was given two penalty charging options – Band 1 and Band 2 – when the new civil parking enforcement scheme was brought in last March.

It opted for Band 1, meaning motorists would either be fined £60 or £40, depending on how serious their parking offence was.

But after it was revealed that only a handful of other authorities in the country were operating on Band 1, senior councillors on the city's ruling cabinet have opted to switch to the higher band.Coun Jim Blackburn, responsible for transport and planning in the city, said: "All neighbouring authorities operate with Band 2 – and introducing the Band 2 charge will provide consistency.

"It will also help to make the service more financially sustainable."

Guidelines say it is sensible for councils to operate self-financing parking enforcement, but they should aim for motorists to have 100 per cent compliance with the rules – meaning no penalty charges are issued.

Coun Blackburn added: "It is anticipated that Band 2 charges will have a positive effect on the degree of compliance with parking and waiting restrictions."

Changing to Band 2 was also recommended by consultants RTA Associates, which carried out a review of civil parking enforcement in Sunderland.

The new charges will come into effect on March 16. Motorists will still get a 50 per cent discount if they pay within 14 days – but can expect a 50 per cent increase if they do not pay up on time.

Sunderland's parking enforcement regime has never been far from the headlines in recent years. An undercover investigation caught parking attendants making racist remarks and cracking jokes about disabled people. Private firm NCP was stripped of its contract to run the off-street parking enforcement regime in the wake of the damming BBC documentary.

Wayne Rooney escapes £60 parking fine

Click Liverpool

England footballer Wayne Rooney escaped a 60 pound parking fine after the manager at a hotel where he was staying stepped-in and got him off with it.

The superstar striker had taken his wife Coleen for a relaxing weekend at the Plush Vincent hotel in Southport as he recovers from a hamstring injury.

On Saturday night Wayne's silver Range Rover Sport was parked in a pay-and-display bay, but it didn't require a ticket from the machine as it was after 6pm.

Next morning his 80,000-pounds motor was still in the pay-and-display bay near the hotel but the Manchester United star did not get up in time to buy a ticket.

After noticing a traffic warden had started to write out a fixed penalty for the car the hotel front of house manager rushed out to plead Wayne's case.

After explaining who the car belonged to via radio to her senior officer Malcolm Ball, the blonde warden was then ordered to rip up the ticket and ignore the parking offence.

The attendant said: "The vehicle should have been issued with a penalty as it did not have a valid parking ticket.

"I was in the process of writing out the fine when I spoke to my boss and was ordered not to give one out."

One onlooker said: "Is it one rule for one and another for footballers?

"You would expect every driver to be treated the same but obviously not when it comes to Wayne Rooney.

"A £60 fine for a Premiership footballer is nothing. It knocks you sick.

"There is no way me or any other person would have been given such a let off. How can the council justify this?"

Hoping to cover his tracks Rooney had a mate shift the 80,000 silver sports car and replace it with his black BMW X5.

The couple checked out of the hotel this morning helped to their second vehicle by the hotel front of house manager Mr Ray Kaim Bacher who spoke to the attendant.

Mr Bacher, claims he did rush out to speak to the traffic attendant but says he would do it for most guests.

He said: "The car in question had been left in the space opposite the hotel by one of our valet parking.

"I walked and had a word with the traffic warden as the owners were getting ready to leave for the day and would only be a moment.

"We do that for most of our guests on a regular basis. It's just part of the service."

A spokesman for Sefton Council said: "We are in discussion with our parking contractor about what happened on this occasion.

"We have however, recently asked the contractor to be a bit more tolerant in this particular area as the parking restrictions are currently under review."

A spokeswoman from parking contractor Legion Group, confirmed it was one of their attendants involved but refused to comment any further.

Blackburn bar owner's bailiff 'nightmare'

The Citizen
By David Watkinson

A BAR boss has slammed “aggresive” bailiffs who have pursued him for three parking tickets — adding more than £1,000 in extra charges.
Ronnie Brown, 57, the owner of North Bar in Blackburn, said he and his wife Josephine, 56, had been treated “horrendously” by bailiffs from the Equita group.
In one letter he was warned that bailiffs will “remove property” from his home to “discharge” his debt.
The letter adds: “I will re-attend your address and may remove goods even in your absence.”
Mr Brown, of Kings Road, Blackburn, said: “I have been in the music business for years and had to deal with some unsavoury characters in my time but my experience with these bailiffs has been horrendous.
“We have been bullied and they have demanded exorbitant amounts of cash.”
Just last month the Lancashire Telegraph reported that pensioner Andy Miller suffered a fatal heart attack after being approached by a bailiff wanting to recover a speeding fine.

After receiving three parking tickets last year due to parking problems near the North Bar in Town Hall Street he attempted to appeal the fines.
But after the appeals were dismissed the council passed the fines, which had risen to £143 each, to the Equita agency.
When he was confronted by bailiffs each had risen to more than £366.
Mr Brown said: “I have paid the bills because the bailiffs were so forceful.
"I just wanted to get rid of them and get them away from my house.
"They sent letter after letter and confronted us face to face demanding the cash immediatly.
"I had no choice but to hand over a cheque.
“I was told that they would force entry to my house and take my property to the value of my debt.
“It was scary and has made my wife quite ill.”
He said he is now considering taking the bailiff firm to court to recover the “disproportionate” fine.
Blackburn with Darwen Council said that parking tickets that are not paid after repeated requests are passed to outside agencies for collection.
Bosses at Equita, the largest national private bailiff company in the UK, said they could not comment on Mr Brown’s case.

Nearly all speed cameras are illegal ...

With the Judicial Review on the illegality of decriminalised parking gathering pace another fightback by Britain's motorists is taking place. It is likely that hundreds if not thousands of motorists will ask to have their cases stayed pending the outcome of the case highlighted below.

Nearly all speed cameras in Britain are illegal following errors from every Home Secretary in the last 15 years, a court has heard.

By David Millward, Transport Editor 29 Jan 2009

Evidence was gathered illegally because 6,000 speed cameras were not given proper Parliamentary approval, it was claimed in a test case.

The action has been brought by a Aitken Brotherston, 61, a businessman from Lyme, Cheshire, who is appealing against a speeding conviction.

Michael Shrimpton, his counsel, told Manchester Crown Court that the case had wide-ranging implications.
It could mean that an estimated £600 million collected in fines and accompanying penalty points were invalid and trigger an avalanche of compensation claims from motorists.
Mr Shrimpton said a change in the 1988 Road Traffic Offenders Act in 1991 had not been properly implemented.

Until then the law that merely required the Home Secretary to approve the technical evaluation of the speed cameras. But since then additional Parliamentary approval has also been required for the devices.

Successive Home Secretaries, starting with Michael Howard in 1992, had failed to do so.
"But this was not done," Mr Shrimpton said. "It is an insult to Parliament in general that it had not identified a single device. This is a very important constitutional point.
"Since 1992 there have been hundreds of thousands of cases which we think are invalid.
"Speeding fines and convictions effect the very fabric of our society. Businesses and people's lives are severely affected when there is a ban from driving or fines.
"There are considerable economic considerations to take into account."

Mr Shrimpton added: "What the Department of Public Prosecutions is saying is that a Minister for example could decide to bring back hanging and he could do so without going to Parliament.
"He could draw up an order without Parliament seeing it and it would then become law."
Nearly 80 other cases are lined up behind Brotherston's which is likely to end up in the House of Lords.

The businessman, of was caught doing 52mph by a speed camera mounted in the back of a van in a 40mph zone.
He was photographed on the A5103 at 1pm on November 6 2006 while he drove his Y-reg Mitsubishi Gallant Estate out of the city centre.
Mr Brotherston received three points on his licence but he is adamant he was not speeding.
Guy Williams, the camera operator told the court: "That vehicle seemed to be driving in excess of 40mph. On seeing this I then aligned my crosshairs on the front of the car producing a reading of 52mph."
The case continues.