Controlled Parking Zones and the High Court case

Just to give a flavour of the importance of the case to be heard before the High Court on the left is a document obtained under the Freedom of Information Act of a meeting which took place between officials from the Department for Transport, the Government Office for the North East and Sunderland City Council.

A lot of information on the reasons for the draftsmen of the TSRGD 2002 being so strict with the definition of a CPZ is still being 'witheld' but the content relating to the meeting is is pretty clear.

More refunds as the fightback continues ...

Council forced to refund £134,000 in parking fines
A council was forced to repay £134,000 in parking fines after changing the rules for leaving cars on bank holidays but forgetting to change the signs.
Daily Telegraph
22 Apr 2010

Camden Council in north London bebgan ticketing drivers for parking on single yellow lines on Good Friday and Easter Monday.
But the has now agreed to refund all the money after a storm of complaints.

And it has promised that in future, drivers will be able to park on single yellows on bank holidays - as they always have done.
Andrew Marshall, the council's Conservative deputy leader, said: "Camden Council got it wrong in terms of enforcing single yellow lines on Easter bank holidays.
Camden Council will now communicate clearly in the run-up to the next bank holiday that we are NOT enforcing single yellow lines."

But Barrie Segal, of the AppealNow website, has called for an inquiry into the council's actions.
He said: "This is like Dick Turpin being caught with his hands down the motorists' pocket.
"It's disgraceful that the council, one of the largest in the country, could stoop to that sort of activity ~ announcing it surreptitiously on the internet and sending out its scavengers to catch unsuspecting motorists."

Traffic wardens handed out a staggering 1,119 fines to motorists on single yellow lines on Good Friday and Easter Monday adding up to £134,280.
But the only warning that parking attendants would be policing single yellow lines was a tiny notice on Camden Council's website announcing that 'normal yellow line restrictions apply for the duration for the Easter period'.

One furious University College London Hospitals doctor, writing on an internet forum as DoctorDJ, said: "I was ticketed as I worked in the A&E department of UCLH treating sick children.
"I've parked on Gower Street every bank holiday (including Christmas Day and Boxing Day) and never been ticketed."

Another outraged driver, writing under the name Innocently, said: "On the Easter Bank Holiday Monday, I parked on a single yellow line at Lincoln Inn Fields, believing it was safe to do so as I have parked there before on bank holidays - only to get a ticket at around 5pm!!!
"I approached the officer who gave the ticket and asked why and he simply snapped back, 'law changed'.
"The ticket officer said I should 'look on the internet'!!!! Who looks on the internet to see if the parking law has changed?"

Motorists who paid their fines by credit or debit card will have the money automatically refunded to their account.
Others will have to apply for their money back.
Sam Monck, assistant director Public Realm and Sustainability at Camden Council, said: "Our traffic orders, relating to single yellow lines, make it clear that we can issue tickets over the bank holiday weekends.
"However in recent years, Camden has on a discretionary basis taken the decision as a gesture of goodwill not to issue parking tickets to cars parked on single yellow lines on Good Friday and Bank Holiday Monday."

He added: "Over the Easter period this year, we did enforce parking regulations and displayed this information on our website, but realise that many motorists may have been confused by the inconsistency.
"Given the history of non-enforcement we have taken the decision to cancel or refund any parking tickets issued on Good Friday and Easter Monday."

The High Court Judicial Review ... Herron v The Parking Adjudicator

The BBC clip below explains the CPZ argument set to be heard before the High Court on the 18th and 19th May.

The independence and impartiality of the Traffic Penalty Tribunal point will now be taken forward with the Glenn Dickinson v The Parking Adjudicator case ... date to be allocated.

Please support The Motorists Legal Challenge Fund at http://www.motoristslegalchallenge.co.uk/

A message from a London Cabbie ...

Now that the High Court date for the Herron v The Parking Adjudicator Judicial Review (18th and 19th May) is rapidly approaching funds are needed, not just for this case but for others which will follow. Please support the Motorists Legal Challenge Fund as Britain’s motorists unite against the parking ticket stealth tax.

Thanks to the London Cab Drivers Club for their support ...
Please visit http://www.motoristslegalchallenge.co.uk/

Law enforcement on the streets of Britain today ...

While we watch large scale X Factor style political debate with popularity being decided not on policy but on body language and presentation the clip and story below shows how real people are affected by the failings of politicians. Privatising law enforcement on the streets of Britain and a failure by politicians and council officers to accept any responsibility has led to the need for campaign groups and individuals to stand up and expose this.

Please support The Motorists Legal Challenge Fund.


Traffic warden faces the sack after foul rant about motorcyclist’s wife

Evening Standard
Felix Allen
19.04.10

A traffic warden faces the sack after his foul-mouthed rant at a motorcyclist was caught on video.
The Westminster council parking attendant is seen shouting at Warren Djangoly and making obscene comments about his wife during a confrontation in the West End.
Mr Djangoly, a management consulant from Barnes, said the abuse was “totally unprovoked”.

The warden, who has not been named, has been suspended after a video of the abuse, filmed by another biker, was posted on YouTube.

The recording shows the warden appearing agitated at being photographed, and saying: “Don't be taking my picture,” before he snaps at Mr Djanogly: “Go and give that to your wife because I'll be f***ing her soon.”
He repeats the comment as he turns his back and walks away.


Mr Djanogly, 46, said it was effectively a “threat of rape”, which he said was particularly alarming as private parking contractors have access to the DVLA database, including motorists' home addresses.

He told the Standard: “I was shocked when he swore at me but I didn't realise exactly what he said until I saw the video. It's really quite appalling. It was also totally unprovoked.
"I only said to him not to bother giving me a ticket because I was going, and he got all aggressive, saying don't tell me what to do'.
“What came out of his mouth next was astonishing and absolutely outrageous. It's very concerning when someone says that to you, and it was really quite traumatising because there's the worry that these people have access to our records.”

He said he has spoken to the police about the incident in New Cavendish Street this month, but is not sure whether to make a formal complaint.
He is also demanding a full apology from Westminster council and its parking enforcement contractor NSL Services, which employs the warden.

Dr Leith Penny, Westminster's strategic director of city management, said: “Our parking attendants do a difficult and challenging job. However, Westminster council demands the highest standards from its parking staff and we do not tolerate this kind of behaviour which is clearly unacceptable.”

NSL spokesman Tim Cowen said the warden's language was “shocking” and an investigation had been launched.
He added: “The civil enforcement officer in question has been removed from the Westminster operation and suspended while that investigation takes place.
"Behaviour like this is not acceptable and would usually result in dismissal if the case is proven.”

Parking refunds due in Edinburgh ...

On closer inspection we are starting to find that many council officers speak with forked tongue.

Yet again, instead of simply apologising for the error they attempt to twist words to say what they want them to mean rather than what they actually say.
If Mr. Leithead is wrong then why go to the expense of correcting something which they claim is already correct?

Is it any wonder that the public is not prepared to accept this any more?


Parking fines in Edinburgh have been illegal for more than a decade, claims former police chief
Apr 19 2010 Rory Reynolds

ALL parking fines issued to drivers in Edinburgh over the past 12 years are illegal, according to a former top traffic cop.

Chris Leithead, the former head of London Metropolitan Police's traffic branch, claims the city council have been fining drivers under "non-existent legislation".

The former superintendent said the local authority had made a fatal error in the wording of the fines and has urged drivers to appeal the penalties or demand a refund.
Edinburgh City Council admit they are to introduce a new Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) but insist there was no issue in the first place.

Leithead, who is now an adviser to councils on decriminalised parking, said: "I believe Edinburgh's main TRO is not lawful.
"It refers to an initial charge for parking places with pay-and-display machines or meters - a term that shouldn't be there.
"When they decriminalised parking, the council were required to amend their TROs to remove the term because it came from a section of the Road Traffic Regulation Act redundant under the new scheme.
"But Edinburgh are still using 'initial charge' in the main TRO, which covers most of the city.
"A local authority can only do what they are empowered to do by law and Edinburgh are making charges under non-existent legislation."

Leithead, 69, said drivers who try to reclaim their fines have a very good case.
He added: "Motorists who have been fined while using a paid parking place have the strongest case.
"That's what the initial charge refers to. But others, such as those who got a ticket for being on yellow lines, could argue they have a case because the whole TRO is unenforceable due to the law."

Edinburgh City Council have issued 920,000 penalty charge notices in the last four years and collected around £7million in fines last year.
Chief executive Tom Aitchison rejected Leithead's claims. He said: "There's no provision in the legislation which necessitates the council to give the period when payment is required a certain name. Therefore, any term can be used."



But he said the council's new TRO changes the wording that Leithead says make the orders illegal. He added: "It removes the words 'initial charge'."

Westminster's wardens to issue warnings ... want to watch a warning in action?

Westminster announce that as from April drivers could receive a warning instead of an automatic fine ... it is reported here by the BBC.



Want to see the 'softer' approach and the 'verbal' warning this Civil Enforcement Officer issued to one motorist?

I think it is about time that a full, public inquiry was launched into this company and its practices. The British motoring public have had enough ... http://www.motoristslegalchallenge.co.uk/

This company has access to the DVLA data base and therefore potentially the home address of the motorist whose wife was threatened. A little point for the politicians to ponder when they begin to consider the real implications of allowing the privatisation of law enforcement and taking it away from real accountability.

This is the beginning of the end of not so civil parking enforcement. We have had enough!

The face of Britain's parking enforcement ...

As the clock ticks for perhaps the biggest parking ticket case the country has ever seen in the High Court the following video clip sums up the true face of parking enforcement on Britain's streets. I hope that you are as shocked as me.

It is a stark reminder of what this lawless, out of control stealth tax has become. This is the frontline of a service delivered by OUR local authorities on behalf of us, by OUR civil servants and by OUR elected representatives on behalf of us. They have all abrogated responsibility. They have left it to individuals and campaign groups to risk everything and make great personal sacrifices to expose the real truth. How many others have suffered similar abuse? How many have been illegally ticketed? How many have been abused?

Is this the real face of parking enforcement? This company was known as National Car Parks Ltd. when the BBC exposed them in Sunderland ... view it here and here and here.

Will they ever change or is the pressure to issue tickets so great that this is what effectively our councils have been reduced to? This is not what I and tens of thousands of others are prepared to accept as a public service.
Please support http://www.motoristslegalchallenge.co.uk/ because the only way we can make a difference is if the threat of financial ruin for those who stand up is removed.

Thanks to http://www.nutsville.com/ for exposing this.

The pressure mounts ...

Should you wish to support please visit www.motoristslegalchallenge.co.uk

Neil Herron selling car and number plate to fund court battle
Apr 11 2010 by Amy Hunt,
Sunday Sun

A PARKING ticket campaigner is flogging his car and personalised numberplate to raise cash for his High Court fight.
Activist Neil Herron is challenging tickets issued by Sunderland City Council, claiming they were unlawful.

In a case which he says could prove pivotal for drivers, he will argue that hundreds of thousands of parking tickets issued around the UK are unlawful because of flawed regulations.

Having already re-mortgaged his house Mr Herron – who set up his own firm Parking Appeals Ltd – is now putting his own Nissan Navara, which he has had for about three years, up for sale, along with a personalised “F1NED” numberplate.

He hopes to raise £20,000 by flogging the car, which has yellow lines painted down the side in an effort to highlight parking problems. He’ll add the car cash to the £80,000 he says his legal fight has already cost him.

Market trader Mr Herron is due at London’s High Court on May 18 to attempt to get a judicial review into Controlled Parking Zones (CPZs).

He will claim that many tickets are invalid, arguing how the law states every road within a CPZ must be marked with a single or double yellow lines, except where parking spaces are provided.
Any CPZ zone which contains other markings like zig-zags, bus lanes, pelican or zebra crossings would be unlawful, making parking tickets issued in it invalid, he says.

Mr Herron said: “We’re trying to expose that local authorities have a duty to residents, rate-payers and motorists to act fairly and to comply with the law and not to use cost as a weapon to deny people justice or use fines as a way to raise revenue. Many people have paid a parking ticket that they feel is unjust because of the potential cost of appealing it.
“Effectively I have spent £100,000 on a parking ticket. But I’ve had to put my money where my mouth is and if you’re going to stand on a point of principle there’s a degree of sacrifice you have to make.
“I’m hoping there’s a millionaire out there who’s fond of social justice and realises there’s a principle to be fought for. I’m sure there will be someone out there who would pay a lot to see this case succeed.”

Sunderland City Council will contest the case on behalf of all local authorities.
In 2001 Mr Herron was part of the campaign to clear the name of greengrocer and “metric martyr” Steven Thoburn.
Mr Thoburn, who died in 2004, was prosecuted for selling his produce traditionally by the pound at his shop in the area Southwick in Sunderland.

From the man of the people ...

It’s what friends are for
by Ray Mallon, Mayor of Middlesbrough
Northern Echo
Friday 9th April 2010

I FIRST came across Neil Herron during the debate on the regional assembly. His side won, mine lost, as he is good enough to remind me every now and then.

Despite our differences, I formed a high opinion of Neil and his determined and principled way of going about things. His activities began with the “Metric Martyrs” campaign where – never one to shirk a challenge – he successfully took on Whitehall and Brussels.

He is now focusing his considerable energies on what he and many others see as the abuse of decriminalised parking legislation by some local authorities.

Neil often harks back to the day it all began, when a shiny-suited official came into his shop and brusquely told him to stop using his scales or face prosecution. I suspect that if that official had his time over again, he would adopt a more customer-friendly approach.
I am rather glad that he behaved the way he did. It was the catalyst for the career of a proper people’s champion.

I know this sounds odd coming from me. I am, after all, responsible for the direction and management of a council, a large public body. Whether I like it or not – and often I don’t – I am a member of the establishment that Neil takes on with persistence and gusto.
But I also have experience of what it is like to be outside the establishment. So I know first-hand what a large and intimidating beast it can be.

I know that when it gets something wrong, the establishment’s first reaction is often to cover up the misdemeanour, rather than put it right. I know that when challenged, it often has recourse to lengthy, expensive legal defences rather than seeking quick, commonsense conciliation and agreement. I know that the bureaucracy which is so familiar to those who work in it every day can be a frightening machine to people who have never had to deal with it before. I know that rules and procedures originally meant to ensure fair play and openness can be manipulated to produce quite different results.

Finally, I know that when people in public office forget they are accountable servants of the people, it is bad for consumers, citizens and government itself.
In this respect, public life is really no different from private. Critical friends – the ones who tell you “you look terrible”, “you need to lose weight”, “you have made a complete mess of things” – and yes, praise you when you manage to get it right – are the real friends. We should value people who tell us what we need to know rather than those who tell us what we want to hear.

That is why I will always be ready to challenge, I hope in a constructive way, the things that my own organisation does. I’ll welcome the comments of the critical friends who can point out ways we can do things better.

Most of all, I will try to help people realise that there’s no shame in admitting they’ve made mistakes. There’s an old saying that the man who never did anything wrong never did anything right either – because he did nothing at all. It applies to organisations as well as individuals.

In Neil’s current campaign, he is seeking a constructive solution to what he sees as a manifest injustice and abuse of process. He realises that councils have a job to do, but wants them to do it fairly and transparently.

I believe that dialogue is better than diktat, so I hope the two sides reach agreement.
I hope, too, that those of us in power realise that we need people like Neil to challenge, question and make life awkward for us.

It’s what friends are for.

Where will the dam crack first ?

Simon English is on the ball again. As storm clouds gather over parking enforcement contracts across the country more and more information is being leaked by individuals concerned that they may be held responsible for the failings of others.

A reminder to all the parking officials across the length and breadth of the land that YOU will be PERSONALLY liable should it be shown that you have acted criminally or even recklessly. It is worth repeating the extract from the Local Authorities (Indemnities for Members and Officers) Order 2004
Restrictions on indemnities
6. - (1) No indemnity may be provided under this Order in relation to any action by, or
failure to act by, any member or officer which -
(a) constitutes a criminal offence; or
(b) is the result of fraud, or other deliberate wrongdoing or recklessness on the
part of that member or officer.

As indicated previously, there are lawyers sitting waiting and the evidence is building. The amount of evidence is growing by the day and more and more are looking to get the matter before the courts.

Westminster faces court fight over its car parking deal
Simon English
06.04.10
Westminster city council is facing a High Court battle amid allegations of favouritism in the awarding of a £50 million four-year parking contract.

In a lawsuit filed over the weekend Apcoa, one of the world's biggest parking enforcement firms, claims it was cheated out of the contract by what it sees as improper behaviour.
The Westminster parking contract is one of the most lucrative in the industry and competition to secure the tender is intense.

In February Westminster announced that Mouchel,the publicly listed engineering company, was the preferred bidder ahead of incumbent NSL and Apcoa, formerly known as the Airport Parking Company of America.

The lawsuit says Westminster broke the law by using “unpublished and unannounced criteria” in deciding which firm to employ.
Apcoa alleges the council “steered” the contract towards “one particular preferred tenderer” even before the three bids had been evaluated.

The allegations could prove highly embarrassing to Westminster and potentially costly to council taxpayers.

In February Westminster pulled the press release announcing that Mouchel had won the contract from its website, but offered no explanation why.

It later emerged that it is running the entire bidding process again, at a cost of around £100,000, following what Leith Penny, the council's strategic director of city management, claimed was “the discovery of a flaw in the contract document”.

The lawsuit suggests it was the bidding process itself which was at fault.
Apcoa, owned by French private-equity house Eurazeo, is best known for running parking at Gatwick and Heathrow. It is demanding either that it is awarded the Westminster contract or else compensated for loss of profits.

The suit, which names the Lord Mayor and citizens of the city of Westminster as defendants, says: “The claimant's case is that the exercise ought to have been (and ought now to be) re-run in a manner that is fair... the claimant claims damages in any event.” Apcoa said it would have won had the process been fair.

Westminster said it will fight the suit. Kevin Goad, head of commissioning for city management, said: “As part of the procurement process the council reserves the right not to award a contract and we remain confident this claim will be dismissed.”

Westminster says it will unveil the result of the new procurement process next month.

PATAS puts TPT to shame ...

The Parking and Traffic Appeals Service (PATAS) is behaving in a correct and proper fashion when it comes to applying the law.

In this case a decision (left) involving an incorrectly marked bay sees the appeal allowed. The decision is so important (and recent) that I have decided to publish it in order for others to use it in defences against similarly, incorrectly and illegally marked restrictions.

Many readers of this blog and parking ticket appellants will have been frustrated by the Traffic Penalty Tribunal's (for appeals against outside of London authorities) attempts to 'dumb down' and subvert the legislation by attempting apply a concept that the law was merely 'a guide' and that a sign, any sign was good enough if 'no reasonable person could be misled.'


PATAS adjudicators appear to be distancing themselves from this 'offensive' stance which implies partiality towards the local authorities.

This is not how the law or the Operational Guidance to Local Authorities was written. The extracts below from the Operational Guidance is explicit ... and shames many decisions by TPT adjudicators. What, or more importantly who are TPT trying to protect?

Has TPT's adjudicators attempts to 'dumb down' the legislation been deliberate to assist local authorities?

Has TPT been aware that many local authorities have misled the Secretary of State into granting Civil Parking Enforcement powers by claiming that ALL their lines and signs comply with TSRGD 2002 and as such, if proven that was the case, the local authorities could have their CPE powers removed thereby affecting TPT's income stream (they are remunerated solely from PCN revenue at the rate of 60p per PCN)?

Is TPT worried that by applying signing law strictly as is required it could affect the decision of adjudicator Andrew Keenan which currently finds itself before the High Court?

Is the Department for Transport worried that they have attempted to support illegal signing and TRO activity by local authorities by failing to investigate complaints and, as such may be subject to criminal complaints?

As a criminal investigation is launched into Sunderland City Council's parking department one has to ask 'How much did the DfT know? Why, when they were aware that Sunderland was acting illegally did they fail to act?'

Let us hope the criminal investigation leaves no stone unturned, especially when interviewing the DfT and GONE officials whose emails referred to 'fraud' and 'illegal.'

Annex E (above) makes interesting reading, especially E5. Sunderland's CPZ ... the subject of the Judicial Review, covers the whole of the City Centre and is over a mile in diameter with hundreds of streets. Seems to be at odds with what is written in the legislation ... but they always knew that.

Perhaps questions need to be asked also as to why ALL the Senior Officers involved in Sunderland are no longer in post and the final one has opted for early retirement, leaving in September.

Beware the night shift ...

PNE fans hit by late-night traffic wardens
Lancashire Evening Post
Four wardens work 'beats' in Preston and each do an eight-hour shift
02 April 2010

Traffic wardens in Preston are working late shifts to police parking at events like football matches and music gigs, bosses have revealed.

Lancashire Parking Services, which is responsible for on-street parking enforcement in the city, said wardens' eight-hour shifts are spread over a 24-hour period.And Preston North End home games or other special events like music gigs are examples of when wardens might work evening shifts.

A spokeswoman for Lancashire Parking Services said there are usually four wardens working 'beats' in Preston, each doing an eight-hour shift.

She said: "They will normally work eight hours a day, however this is spread over a 24-hour period and will depend on the restrictions, the need for effective traffic management and enforcing where road safety is paramount."It also depends on any special events taking place in the city, eg football matches/music events etc, and whether there are repeated requests for enforcement from residents that need to be factored in to their 'beats' and hours of working."

She added: "Event organisers can work with us when they are planning their events to manage their parking provision and facilities near to where the event is taking place. "Usually, this will mean that we need to suspend enforcement of bays or provide more dispensations to ensure that there is adequate availability of spaces for the number of people being in a single location at a given time. "This doesn't necessarily mean that we will be issuing Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs)."But events usually require that additional work is carried out to erect temporary signage to advise motorists of temporary restrictions or to suspend parking enforcement in particular areas."

Neil Herron, of campaign group Parking Appeals, said such enforcement needs to be transparent. He said: "If they are going to target events because they know there will be a lot of people there they have got to send a message loud and clear through the local press that this is what they are going to do – and for the first couple of months give out warning notices instead of tickets. "If they don't do that then it just smacks of revenue raising."

A spokesman for Preston Council, which is now in charge of enforcement car parks, said: "We have shifts and rotas to cover parking in our car parks." But he said no extra wardens are sent out when there big events at venues like the Guild Hall.

Coun Anthony Gornall, deputy leader of the council, said: "People should observe the rules if there are parking restrictions in place."

Council enforcing parking under contract law ...

Exeter Council issue the tickets 'under contract law' and receive the money. Where is the appeals process? Where is the scrutiny? Who authorised this and under what powers?
A full investigation needs to be launched immediately into this and all the other 'inconsistencies' in parking enforcement in the Devon area.
Anyone with information can pass it on to neil@parkingappeals.co.uk

Exeter hospital parking patrols to stand down
Exeter Express and Echo
Thursday, March 25, 2010, 07:21

COUNCILLORS have backed plans for the city council to pull out of patrolling the car park at Exeter’s main hospital.
The council’s civil enforcement officers will continue issuing fines at the Royal Devon & Exeter Hospital until May 31. After that the hospital has to make its own arrangements.
The council suspended enforcement in October after discovering it was issuing tickets under the wrong traffic order.

The mistake has left the authority having to pay back £35,000 in refunds to motorists who were issued with tickets.
The city council’s executive committee was told that enforcement had started again this month following a new agreement with the hospital.

But it would cease at the end of May because of the “disproportionate amount of staff time to oversee it”.

John Rigby, the city council’s director for economy and development, told the committee that discussions with the RD&E had concluded with an agreement to stop enforcement.
Councillor Percy Prowse said the council had been too slow in realising its mistakes in issuing tickets at the car park.
He said: “I requested in May last year that we ought to suspend issuing tickets, but it didn’t stop until October.”
He said motorists who have been issued with tickets at the site this month may also be entitled to a refund.

But Mr Rigby told the Echo the council had a legal agreement to patrol the site and the council was confident tickets issued this month were legal.
He said: “The city council is enforcing the RD&E’s own parking policy on the basis of a contractual arrangement in accordance with the provisions of the Local Authorities (Goods and Services) Act 1970.
“It is satisfied the new arrangements are enforceable and in accordance with the RD&E’s new parking policy the council has been issuing penalty tickets since Monday, March 1. The contract will end on May 31.”

A spokesman for the RD&E NHS Hospital Trust said options were being considered and no decision had yet been made.

Council admits to unjust enrichment ...

... but thinks that it can get away with asking the motorist to provide evidence that they paid a ticket.

Let us hope that the councillors now start to take a closer look at exactly what has gone on over the past two years and initiate an investigation of their own.

The council officers are fully aware that they had no legal authority to issue tickets and as such the council has no right to keep the money.

A little reminder here for the councillors and here with

regard to their own personal liability should they fail to act.

And remember, THE COUNCIL has all the details of the persons who have paid and THE COUNCIL is required to keep those details.

There is a great deal more to be revealed in relation to parking matters in the South West and it is about to get very serious indeed.

What happens when council officers tell lies ...

Many council officers have 'misbehaved' in many ways and told lies that would even make Pinnochio blush.


However, not having wooden noses it is often difficult to prove when a council officer is lying ... and that is why hard evidence is required.

Evidence of a very serious nature is being collated against a number of local authorities who, let us be polite, have 'misled' the Secretary of State into granting Civil Enforcement powers. If any of these council officers think that they will be protected by their council's insurers then I would suggest that they look at the legislation below. Any council officers who attempts to support or protect fellow officers will be in the frame as well. Point to ponder as all you read this.

There is no 'amnesty' should an officer retire or resign, and they may also personally face claims for damages should a civil case be taken against them or criminal matters investigated. I am aware that lawyers are already instructed in at least one case. Perhaps the first arrest of a council officer will bring home the gravity of councils 'attempting to expose individuals to the risk of a loss' through deliberate wrongdoing or recklessness and send a warning shot across the boughs.

Meanwhile, thanks to those out there with honesty and integrity who are not prepared to be the 'patsies' for civil servants who seem to have forgotten a long time ago that their duty is to serve (and be civil while they're at it).


Statutory Instrument 2004 No. 3082
The Local Authorities (Indemnities for Members and Officers) Order 2004

Restrictions on indemnities
6. - (1) No indemnity may be provided under this Order in relation to any action by, or failure to act by, any member or officer which -
(a) constitutes a criminal offence; or
(b) is the result of fraud, or other deliberate
wrongdoing or recklessness on the part of that member or officer.

(2) Notwithstanding paragraph (1)(a), an indemnity may be provided in relation to -
(a) subject to article 8 below, the defence of any criminal proceedings brought against the officer or member; and
(b) any civil liability arising as a consequence of any action or failure to act which also constitutes a criminal offence.

(3) No indemnity may be provided under this Order in relation to the making by the member or officer indemnified of any claim in relation to an alleged defamation of that member or officer but may be provided in relation to the defence by that member of officer of any allegation of defamation made against him.

Temperature's rising in London ... and across the country.

There are rumblings and mumblings in other parts of the country and a number of criminal complaints actively being investigated. It is also understood that complaints have also been made against Government officials and the IPCC are involved in one due to the fact that an allegation was not investigated.

Police drop Westminster Council parking fraud inquiry
BBC News
Westminster had denied wrongdoing
Police have dropped an investigation into allegations of fraud at Westminster Council's parking unit.

The case concerned the awarding of a multi-million pound parking enforcement contract to private firm NSL Services that campaigners said was "improper".
But a Met spokesman said: "The information provided was investigated and no criminal offence was disclosed."
Group No To Bike Parking Fees (NTBPF), which made the claim, said police had not fully examined the evidence.

European Union law says contracts worth more than £156,442 must be opened to tender to any interested company and advertised in the EU's official journal.

The investigation could have been a lot more thorough. We had four people working on this case - and none of us were contacted at any stage
Warren Djanogly, No To Bike Parking Fees

Westminster's parking contract is worth about £13m-a-year and was previously being carried out by private parking firm NCP.
But in 2007 NCP was sold and broken up into smaller companies with the new firm, NSL Services created.

NTBPF alleged that at that point the contract was given directly to the new company without going through proper tendering processes.
The group has been examining Westminster Council since the authority began charging motorcyclists to park in central London.

But in an email to Westminster's chief executive Mike More, a Scotland Yard officer wrote: "Having examined the documents that the allegation has been based upon I am satisfied no criminal offences have been committed."

'Unanswered questions'
Mr More said: "From the outset we stated that we were confident this contract had been properly let by our officers and these claims were totally unfounded.
"We are pleased that police have concluded their investigation and have cleared our staff of any wrongdoing."

But Warren Djanogly, of NTBPF, said he had been told earlier this month that the case was to be passed to the Serious Fraud Office.
Mr Djanogly said: "Unfortunately it seems the investigation could have been a lot more thorough.
"We had four people working on this case - and none of us were contacted at any stage. There are still many unanswered questions."

Politicians ... heaven or hell?

With an election in the offing just have a read of this and remember the promises they make ...

While walking down the street one day a Member of Parliament is tragically hit by a truck and dies. His soul arrives in heaven and is met by St. Peter at the entrance.'

'Welcome to heaven,' says St. Peter.

'Before you settle in, it seems there is a problem. We seldom see a high official around these parts, you see, so we're not sure what to do with you.'

'No problem, just let me in,' says the man.

'Well, I'd like to, but I have orders from higher up. What we'll do is have you spend one day in hell and one in heaven. Then you can choose where to spend eternity.'

'Really, I've made up my mind. I want to be in heaven,' says the MP.

'I'm sorry, but we have our rules.'

And with that, St. Peter escorts him to the elevator and he goes down, down, down to hell. The doors open and he finds himself in the middle of a green golf course. In the distance is a clubhouse and standing in front of it are all his friends and other politicians who had worked with him. Everyone is very happy and in evening dress.

They run to greet him, shake his hand, and reminisce about the good times they had while getting rich at the expense of the people. They play a friendly game of golf and then dine on lobster, caviar and champagne.

Also present is the devil, who really is a very friendly & nice guy who has a good time dancing and telling jokes. They are having such a good time that before he realizes it, it is time to go. Everyone gives him a hearty farewell and waves while the elevator rises....

The elevator goes up, up, up and the door reopens on heaven where St. Peter is waiting for him.

'Now it's time to visit heaven.'

So, 24 hours pass with the MP joining a group of contented souls moving from cloud to cloud, playing the harp and singing. They have a good time and, before he realizes it, the 24 hours have gone by and St. Peter returns.

'Well, then, you've spent a day in hell and another in heaven. Now choose your eternity.'

The MP reflects for a minute, then he answers: 'Well, I would never have said it before, I mean heaven has been delightful, but I think I would be better off in hell.'

So St. Peter escorts him to the elevator and he goes down, down, down to hell. Now the doors of the elevator open and he's in the middle of a barren land covered with waste and garbage. He sees all his friends, dressed in rags, picking up the trash and putting it in black bags as more trash falls from above. The devil comes over to him and puts his arm around his shoulder.

' I don't understand,' stammers the MP.

'Yesterday I was here and there was a golf course and clubhouse, and we ate lobster and caviar, drank champagne, and danced and had a great time. Now there's just a wasteland full of garbage and my friends look miserable.
What happened?'

The devil looks at him, smiles and says, 'Yesterday we were campaigning.. ... Today you voted.'

Thought it wasn't about making money ...

Parking fines 'don't cover attendant costs'
Parking fines recovered by Northern Ireland's parking attendants do not cover the cost of employing them.
Tuesday, 23 March 2010

Almost £18m was spent on NSL Ltd, the private company which provides traffic attendants in Northern Ireland since 2006, according to figures obtained by SDLP MLA John Dallat.
Just over £10m was collected in parking fines by NSL Ltd during the same period.
Mr Dallat said the payments by the Department for Regional Development appeared excessive.

Mr Dallat said: "This appears to be an excessive amount of money and over the past two years the cost of this scheme has increased by 20%.
"Clearly the expense of this scheme needs to be controlled otherwise it (will) become an albatross around the neck of the Department of Regional Development which is already experiencing unprecedented financial strain."
But the company said the money represented best value for competitively advertised services.
The scheme cost £17.7m over three years since the financial year 2006/07. A total of £10.1m was received in penalty tickets.

Tim Cowen, a spokesman for NSL, said: "NSL is paid by the department for a range of services including parking enforcement and car park management. We do not receive any income from PCNs (penalty charge notices).
"When NSL was awarded this contract it was through a public competitive tendering process, which ensures that public authorities get the best price for contracted services."

Watching the watchers ...

Richmond Council defends 'spy' car parking on double yellow lines
Friday 19th March 2010
By Chris Wickham »

This was the moment a council car used to catch law-breaking motorists was caught breaking the very rules it is meant to enforce.

Tom Galvin, of Hampton Wick, spotted the Richmond Council Smart car stopped on double yellow lines in Broad Street, Teddington, at about 8am last Wednesday.

The managing director of Chiswick-based property maintenance firm Adrem took this snap – which is likely to leave law-abiding motorists more than a little miffed.

He said if they do not allow flexibility for residents who sometimes parked illegally for short periods they should not be entitled to it either.

He said: “I have no gripe with the council, it does a good job generally – it is a difficult job trying to keep [everyone] happy. But I feel we are watched and picked up on for every little misdemeanour, when you get a ticket from this [car] it feels like you have been mugged and there is a hypocrisy to it.”

Mr Galvin said many of his staff were often handed fines for going about their daily business.
Councillor David Trigg, Richmond Council, cabinet member for traffic, transport and parking, defended the car stopping where it did and said it had dispensation to do so briefly when necessary.

He added: “In this instance the car saw evidence of a vehicle which had been parked illegally on a double yellow line in Broad Street, Teddington.
“In order for the civil enforcement officer driving the CCTV car to take this evidence safely, he had to stop on the double yellow line, or he would have blocked traffic.
“He had moved away again within three minutes. The council runs a firm, but fair, parking enforcement service. Motorists should be aware of parking restrictions which are either signposted or obvious through double yellow lines.
“We aim for a fair enforcement policy and we will always give full attention to any appeals made.”

Data breach has serious implications ...

Once someone who has been prejudiced begins taking legal action will the ICO be as blase about the failings?

Legal threat to council after parking fines blunder
Stuart Pike
Accrington Observer
March 19, 2010

The council unlawfully processed personal data ranging from parking fines to police checks for over four years, leaving their decision open to legal challenge.

Hyndburn Council remained unregistered with the Information Commissioner’s Office for a total of 50 months between November 2005 and February 10 this year. This is a criminal offence.
The licence, which costs just £35 per year, gives authority to process personal data across the spectrum of council decisions, any of which could technically now be open to challenge.

These include assessment and collection of council tax and business rates of over £40m a year, benefits, environmental health, planning, licensing and prosecution of offenders.

It also means the council could have handled data unlawfully from sources including the police, courts, debt collection agencies, probation services, religious organisations and social security.
Council bosses have apologised for the ‘oversight’, but insist that no one has been prejudiced by the lapsed registration. But the borough’s Labour group has written to chief executive David Welsby demanding to know the full implications of the failing.

The ICO has said it will not take further action, but campaign groups say the ‘gross error’ means the council could now face recourse from anyone with a ‘grievance’.

Dylan Sharpe, campaign director of Big Brother Watch, said: "For Hyndburn Council to have been unregistered for so long is a gross error that deserves far greater punishment than the slap on the wrists the ICO has given. Residents hand over huge amounts of personal data to their council - from wages and tax payments to their children’s health records - and we rely upon there being a system in place to prevent a local bureaucrat profiting from access to this data.
"People living in Hyndburn should be outraged that their privacy has been compromised in this manner and this matter should be investigated immediately."

Neil Herron, of Parking Appeals, said: "Every single thing where data has been processed could be liable.
"The chances of someone challenging over a £30 parking ticket are very slim. But there might be a company that has £1M worth of parking tickets.
"It could also affect council tax liability orders. You’ve also got to look at if they were processing data for Criminal Records Bureau checks.
"Anybody aggrieved by the actions of the local authority could take action. What they would have to do would be to complain to the Information Commission that the data had been processed illegally. It’s not good enough for them to say they’re registered now."

Ex-councillor Tim O’Kane, a former portfolio holder for data protection issues, claimed that over £100m in council tax had effectively been collected ‘illegally’ due to the mistake. Don’t forget that about 10 per cent of council tax bill pays for all the police wages. How can the police not be concerned that tens of millions of their money was collected illegally?"

A council spokesman said: "Due to an oversight on our part the council’s registration as a data controller under the Data Protection Act 1998 lapsed. We have taken immediate action to rectify the position and have re-registered with the Information Commission (ICO)". We are obviously very sorry this has happened. However, we are satisfied that we have sound procedures for handling personal data about our customers, and the lapse in registration has not prejudiced anyone in any way."

A spokesman for the ICO said: "Organisations that process personal information have a statutory requirement to notify the ICO that they are a data controller. Failure to do so is a criminal offence." He added that as the council has now registered no further action will be taken.

No one makes mistakes in contracts ... or do they?

Westminster car-clamping finds a flaw in the oinkment
Simon English
Evening Standard 16th March 2010

In February, Westminster council unveiled which firm it had chosen to run a £50 million, four-year parking contract (clamping and ticketing drivers, basically).
Competition to land the tender was fierce and the winner, Mouchel, had reason to be pleased. The press release announcing the news has since been pulled from the council website — why, I asked?

Westminster tells me it has “suspended the procurement process” for its on-street parking enforcement “following the discovery of a flaw in the contract document”. What this means isn't entirely clear but the whole bidding process now has to be repeated at considerable cost to council taxpayers. NSL, which held the previous contract, is also presumably being paid extra to continue its work.

Westminster's parking department is no stranger to controversy. There are, so far as we know, two inquiries into contracts awarded by the department. One of them sees allegations of fraud levelled at two Westminster officials — police are investigating.

Neil Herron of ParkingAppeals.co.uk, a one-stop shop for motorist complaints about grasping councils, reckons there is something thoroughly fishy about how Westminster conducts its parking affairs. There may be more news to emerge here…

Illegal parking tickets in Nottingham

Drivers could have received illegal parking-tickets

(Left) PARKING UP THE RIGHT TREE -- Ray Bramley by the 'No Waiting At Any Time' sign

Hucknall Dispatch
Published Date: 12 March 2010

A HUCKNALL man who has had a parking-ticket quashed fears other drivers might have paid fines when they didn't need to.
Ray Bramley, of Braunton Close, parked his car on a strip of land outside the Green Dragon pub car-park on Watnall Road last May. He received a ticket from a warden working for Notts County Council. But Mr Bramley believed he had done no wrong because he was parked on private land.

A traffic-penalty tribunal agreed with him and the £70 ticket was dropped last October. But now a 'No Waiting At Any Time' sign has been put up on the land by the county council, leaving Mr Bramley confused.

He said: "How can the council get away with putting that sign there? It is private land."Even after a tribunal ruling, the sign is still there."The council just seem to push things as far as they want and get away with it. They use bully-boy tactics."I wonder how many other people paid a fine for parking where I parked, when they didn't have to."How much money have they made from this land? Will they pay any back?"And why did my case go on for so long? I proved early on it was private land. It is just plain ignorance."
They rejected two appeals and I had it hanging over me for six months. The appeal process needs revamping."

The land, which sits between the pavement and the wall of the pub car-park, belongs to Trust Inns, who run the pub. The firm was surprised to hear the 'No Waiting' sign was there -- because it had told the council to move it last October.

Lyn Perry, of Trust Inns, said: "We did not give permission to the council to put the sign there. We wrote to them saying we wanted it removing. We sent proof of ownership of the land and photographs."We will be writing to them again as we did not know the sign was still there until you told us."

When contacted by the Dispatch, the council was unavailable for comment.

Has the Secretary of State been misled? You decide ...

In advance of being granted Civil Parking Enforcement powers a senior officer at Devon County Council had to confirm that all lines, signs and TROs had been checked and were compliant. This is to comply with the requirements of the Operational Guidance to Local Authorities


As can be seen from the application (left) this was done. Once you have read the extract then read the admission from the council at the bottom.
Was the Secretary of State misled? There is more to come ...

Key criteria when applying for the power to enforce parking regulations

12.1 The key criteria on which DfT will be need to be satisfied are that:
­ - the authority has reviewed its existing parking policies and analysed how CPE will contribute to overall transport objectives;
­ - the authority has consulted as required and taken account of theirviews in finalising the application;
­ - proposed penalty charges are proportionate to the scale of the traffic management issues facing the enforcement authority;
­ - there is consistency with neighbouring schemes so that motorists and others affected can understand how it works; and
­ - ALL TRAFFIC REGULATION ORDERS (TROS), TRAFFIC SIGNS AND ROAD MARKINGS ARE IN COMPLIANCE WITH LEGAL REQUIREMENTS AND THE TRAFFIC SIGNS AND ROAD MARKINGS ARE CONSONANT WITH THE ORDERS.

What an authority should do before taking on parking enforcement power
Traffic Regulation Orders (TROs)
13.6 The appraisal of parking policy should include the scope and relevance ofall existing on-street and off-street TROs. It should include how they need to change to meet the authority’s parking policy objectives.
The review of the TROs should check whether the restrictions indicated by traffic signs and road markings are the same as those authorised by the TRO and make them consistent if they are not.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE WILL NOT SIGN AN ORDER UNTIL A SENIOR OFFICIAL OF THE AUTHORITY HAS CONFIRMED IN WRITING THAT ALL existing and new TROs, TRAFFIC SIGNS AND ROAD MARKINGS in the proposed CEA:
­ have been reviewed;
­ - ARE IN LINE WITH GOVERNMENT REGULATIONS167 AND GUIDANCE IN RELEVANT CHAPTERS OF THE TRAFFIC SIGNS MANUAL OR HAVE SPECIAL AUTHORISATION FROM DFT;
­ - are consistent with each other; and
­ - are in a good state of repair.
167 Principally the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 (S.I. 2002/3113) or subsequent editions substituted






This now requires a full investigation into the rest of the application for Civil Parking Enforcement powers as it appears as though there are issues with regard to the report commissioned by the council and performed by consultants Parsons Brinkerhoff which highlighted thousands of incorrectly marked restrictions ie. not compliant with TSRGD 2002.

Westminster parking contract blunder ...

I am sure that there will be many motorists out there who have made simple mistakes and have ended up with a penalty. However, the biggest parking enforcement council is 'allowed' to just sweep another 'mistake' under the carpet and start again.
It's about time that someone, somewhere got a grip before there is no credibility left and parking enforcement is brought into total national disrepute.
Nothing short of a full, independent investigation showing warts 'n' all will be acceptable, and would finally put all matters beyond doubt.

Inquiry call after Westminster Council admits bungle
BBC News

Westminster has been embroiled in numerous parking rows in 2010
A full investigation into Westminster Council's parking department has been demanded by campaigners after BBC London learned it cancelled the tendering of a contract due to a legal flaw and must start from scratch.

The council named Mouchel as preferred bidder for the four-year, £50m contract to provide parking enforcement services for the central London borough.
But the process was scrapped when in-house lawyers pointed out they had "judged the preferred bidder on price criteria which went beyond what was originally published to tenderers".

Westminster insists both contracts were properly tendered and maintains it acted within the rules at all times.
Mouchel has made no comment.

It comes after two separate inquiries were launched into contracts previously awarded by Westminster's parking department.

In one of the inquiries, the EU is investigating Partnerships in Parking (PiP), a body set up by the council to allow several local authorities to join forces to buy cheap parking services.

Westminster is supposed to be the flagship parking enforcement authority and yet, once again, we have another blunder
Neil Herron, parking campaigner

Canadian company Verrus was awarded the contract to provide pay-and-display services, pay-by-phone, parking tickets and debt collection to the councils.
But it is alleged that, when additional councils joined PiP, they broke European Union rules by automatically starting to use Verrus, rather than tendering it out.

In the other inquiry, which started in February, police are investigating allegations of fraud against two senior officers at Westminster Council.
That case concerned the awarding of another multi-million pound parking enforcement contract to a different private company.

'Flagship authority'
The latest revelation about the Mouchel contract has led parking campaigner Neil Herron, of Parking Appeals, to call for a full investigation into contract procedures at the authority.
He said: "Westminster is supposed to be the flagship parking enforcement authority and yet, once again, we have another blunder.
"We have seen illegal controlled parking zones, Diplomatic Bays not compliant and police investigations.
"It is about time a full, independent investigation was conducted into the whole of the parking enforcement regime."

Leith Penny, Westminster Council's director of city management, said: "Westminster Council has suspended the procurement process for parking enforcement following the discovery of a flaw in the contract document.
"To be fair and transparent to those involved in the process we have decided to end the current procurement process.
"We will instead start a new accelerated procurement process with a successful tenderer expected to be announced in about three months time."

It is the latest in a series of controversies to embroil Westminster Council's parking department.
In February, BBC London revealed Westminster's diplomatic parking bays had not had the correct authorisation for three decades, meaning millions of pounds of fines may be unlawful.
In January it was caught ordering officers to find ways to use parking to make more revenue, in an apparent breach of the law.
Westminster took £72m of revenue from parking last year, almost twice as much as the next highest earning London council.

Dangerous driving and anti-social behaviour in the West End ...

Cllr Chalkley states that CCTV cameras have been installed in areas with 'known problems with traffic and anti-social behaviour.'
Cllr. Chalkley then states 'motorists will think twice before driving dangerously or inconsiderately.'
So there are problems with anti-social behaviour and dangerous driving and Westminster intends to 'cure' this by issuing PCNs ... for parking contraventions!

Now that Mr. Chalkley has identified the 'reasons' for the use of CCTV he needs to produce a copy of the Crime and Disorder strategy required under Sections 5 and 6 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998.
He will need to provide evidence of the anti-social behaviour and dangerous driving to which he refers and how his strategy will address this, along with details of the consultations he has held, or intends to hold, with the relevant Metropolitan Polce officers in order to not only reduce crime but also reduce the fear of crime.


100 extra CCTV cameras mean more parking fines in Westminster
David Williams,
Motoring Correspondent
08.03.10

The number of motorists fined for parking offences in central London will rise from today as 100 CCTV “spy” cameras are switched on.
The move follows a reprieve of nearly a year for drivers after the wireless cameras had to be switched off because they did not meet Department for Transport guidelines on image quality.
Westminster council has now fixed the £15 million digital network of cameras, increasing the pixellation, at a cost of £495,000 and had them re-certificated.

The software was also upgraded at an extra cost of £330,000.
The cameras go “live” today and the first parking fines will go out within days.

Officials say the cameras were responsible for around 20 per cent of parking fines in the borough prior to being switched off. Last year Westminster issued a total of 686,310 parking fines.
Click on the image below to see the full version

Today the council published an internet map revealing the location of each camera and said there will be “Street Enforcement Camera” signs at street level.

The cameras are in the West End, Belgravia, Trafalgar Square, Knightsbridge, Oxford Street and on central London's main bridges.

The cameras were meant to have been back online more than six months ago but it took longer than expected to gain official certification for the upgraded devices, the council said.
Danny Chalkley, Westminster's cabinet member for city management, said: “We have sought a fairer approach to parking enforcement and are committed to getting it right first time round. CCTV is an effective tool in ensuring this happens.
“Cameras in Westminster are used in areas where there are known problems with traffic and anti-social behaviour and we hope that by highlighting the locations of these cameras motorists will think twice before driving dangerously or inconsiderately.”

More investigations, more questions ...

Easiest way to clear all this up is for a full, independent investigation. Local authority 'business' must be transparent and accountable.

Westminster Council's parking department faces EU probe
By Ed Davey
BBC News, London

Westminster Council has insisted it did not break any rules
Westminster Council's parking department is being investigated by the European Union over alleged contractual irregularities, BBC London has learned.

The inquiry concerns Partnerships in Parking, a body set up by the council to allow local authorities to join forces to buy cheap parking services.

In February, BBC London revealed police are holding an inquiry into another contract awarded by the department.

Westminster Council has insisted it did not break any rules.

Partnerships in Parking (PiP) was set up by Westminster's head of parking Alastair Gilchrist and Councillor Danny Chalkley.

Transport for London and six local authorities in the city joined when it was first started up. They said they hoped to get a better deal for parking enforcement services from the private sector.

We are aware of this enquiry and have responded to the commission's request for information
Councillor Danny Chalkey

Canadian company Verrus was awarded the contract to provide pay-and-display services, pay-by-phone, parking tickets and debt collection to the councils.

But it is alleged that, when additional councils joined PiP, they broke European Union rules by automatically starting to use Verrus, rather than tendering it out.

The British government chose not to investigate the case. But the European Union launched its own enquiry - and ordered the UK government to account for its own decision not to.
The Office of Government Commerce (OGC) then asked Westminster Council's legal team to draft a reply to the EU.

Infringement proceedings
An OGC spokesman told the BBC: "I can confirm that we have been in discussions with the European Commission and Westminster Council and we will be able to update you in due course."

A European Commission spokesman said: "There is indeed a case. We sent a letter of formal notice on 20 November 2009 - this is the first stage of our infringement proceedings.
"UK authorities replied on 22 January. This reply is currently under assessment - next step not yet decided.
"If we're content with [the] UK government reply, we close the case. If we're not, then we move to the second stage of infringement proceedings."

Councillor Danny Chalkley, Westminster Council's cabinet member for city management, said: "We are aware of this enquiry and have responded to the commission's request for information.
"The contract was properly awarded after a tender process carried out in accordance with the law and the council's procurement processes.
"We will continue to work with Verrus to provide effective parking services across central London."

'Too busy'
On Wednesday Mr Gilchrist was due to speak at a conference on parking services to "discuss the merits of the PiP framework agreement" (The agreement to have parking services supplied by Verrus through PiP).
However, he cancelled the event at the last minute. Mr Gilchrist told the BBC it was because he was "too busy" to speak.
It is the second time in as many months it has emerged that the council's parking department is under investigation.
In February, police began an investigation into allegations of fraud against two senior officers at Westminster Council.

That case concerned the awarding of another multi-million pound parking enforcement contract to a different private company.
Westminster insists that contract was also properly tendered.

That investigation followed a series of controversies connected to Westminster Council's parking department.

Earlier in February, BBC London revealed that Westminster's diplomatic parking bays had not had the correct authorisation for three decades, meaning millions of pounds of fines may be unenforceable.

In January it was caught ordering officers to find ways to use parking to make more revenue, in an apparent breach of the law.

The motorists fightback begins ...

Who is going to speak up for the exploited motorist?
Why aren't politicians taking more notice of the increasingly angry motorist who feels powerless to do anything about our unjust parking laws, asks Philip Johnston.
By Philip Johnston
Daily Telegraph
26 Feb 2010

Near where I live in south London is a facility as rare as hen's teeth: a road right by a railway station where it has been possible to park – for free. For years, commuters in the know happily parked there and travelled into the City, leaving their cars all day, hardly able to believe their luck.

Until last week, that is, when meters were installed by the local council, even though the street is a cul-de-sac far from the town centre. Since there is no through traffic, there is no congestion and so no earthly reason why there should be a charge for parking – other than to raise money for the council coffers, which we are constantly told does not happen.

The powers on which local authorities rely are contained in the 1984 Road Traffic Regulation Act, which makes it clear that charges must not be levied to raise revenue, but only to make appropriate traffic-management provision. My council has ignored this and attempted to cash in. Ironically, because the time limits make it impossible to leave the car all day, nobody parks on the road by the station any more. So thousands of pounds have been wasted on installing the meters and painting the lines.

Parking laws in this country are not only unjust but are often incompetently administered. Yet does anyone speak up for the harassed, frustrated and increasingly angry motorist who feels powerless to do anything about it? You will look in vain for any of the political parties to raise the standard of revolt.

This week, however, a coalition of motoring organisations has published its own Manifesto on the Reform of Parking and Traffic Enforcement. It is calling for the parties to commit to tightening the regulations and so ensuring that parking charges and penalties are properly and legally applied.

In the 52 years since the first parking meters appeared in London, a vast industry has spread across the country, employing an army of nearly 200,000 wardens, administrators, managers, camera operators, line painters, sign makers, wheel clampers and the rest, all of whom have to be paid for from the billions of pounds raised by what is, in essence, a tax.

Parking restrictions were supposed to be solely and exclusively about traffic management and congestion relief, not about raising money. Yet, according to the Local Government Finance Statistics 2009, councils last year made £1.3 billion from on- and off-street parking and spent about £820 million on maintaining and enforcing the regime. So the surplus revenue from parking was more than £500 million, a phenomenal amount of money. Last year, more than nine million parking tickets were issued – up from 5.7 million in six years.

The decriminalisation of parking, which began in London in 1991 and allowed local authorities to take over parking enforcement, has added to the sense of grievance among those fined for infractions because the penalties are often out of all proportion to the offence and there is no means of pursuing justice through the courts.

Parking restrictions are certainly needed in town centres to avoid congestion. But greedy councils with their rows of meters often kill off businesses by making it too expensive for people to stop to shop; instead, they go to the free car park attached to the out-of-town superstore, thereby hastening the decline of the town centre while adding to traffic pollution.

In truth, the mainstream political parties have a vested interest in the system because they all run councils that benefit mightily from keeping things as they are.

Yet if one of them had the sense to adopt the motorists' manifesto – or even acknowledge that there is a problem that needs to be addressed – they might even sweep the country.