Monday, January 04, 2010
Sunday, January 03, 2010
Bill of Rights Pandora's Box set to be re-opened
If, as is claimed, the Bill of Rights 1689 is still in force and contains enshrined constitutional provisions, then we need to re-examine this section:
That all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of particular persons before
conviction are illegal and void;
What flows from this is that EVERY decriminalised parking fine imposed by a council is illegal and void as it is a fine which has not been imposed by the courts. Robin Decrittenden argued this before Justice Collins but was told that a parking ticket was not a fine it was a civil responsibility and that the Bill of Rights had been impliedly repealed by later statutes thereby conflicting with the Metric Martyrs Judgment which ruled certain acts had constitutional significance.
The Council had also 'no contested' the case therefore there was technically no fine or forfeiture.
Perhaps it is time for Mr. Decrittenden to get another parking ticket.
MPs claim they are above the law in expenses fraud caseClaire Newell, Jonathan Calvert, Jonathan Oliver
Sunday Times January 3, 2010
Jim Devine is alleged to have submitted a claim using a receipt bearing a bogus VAT number
Three Labour MPs being investigated for expenses fraud are arguing that they should not be prosecuted because their suspect claims are covered by parliamentary privilege.
The MPs have hired legal experts to assert that the 1689 Bill of Rights protects them from prosecution.
The lawyers are understood to have sent detailed submissions to police and prosecutors which contend that the House of Commons rule book on expenses is “privileged” and cannot be subject to scrutiny by the courts. More ...
Saturday, January 02, 2010
Bah Humbug
Humbugs for 'Scrooge' councillors
BBC 24th December 2009
Getting a ticket is unlikely to leave you full of festive cheer
A motorists' group angry about the decision of "Scrooge-like" councils to issue tickets on Boxing Day has given a bag of humbugs to one authority.
Fifteen out of 32 London councils are not recognising 26 December as a bank holiday and will charge as usual.
To protest, London Motorists Action Group (LMAG) has given Westminster Council - with London's highest parking revenue - a bag of mint humbugs.
The council said 26 December is one of the year's busiest shopping days.
But LMAG Director Richard Chaumeton said: "Westminster is the biggest council and should be leading by example and make Boxing Day parking free out of a spirit of goodwill.
"The councillors' Ebenezer Scrooge-like attitude conveys an impression of money-grabbing greed."
Mr Chaumeton added: "We hope they enjoy their humbugs - courtesy of LMAG."
This smacks more of opportunism rather than a desire to keep traffic moving
Neil Herron Parking campaigner
The catchphrase of Charles Dickens' famous Christmas-hating miser Ebenezer Scrooge was: "Bah humbug!"
Westminster Council made £72m from parking last year, more than any other London borough.
Kevin Goad, Westminster Council's head of parking, said: "We understand parking enforcement is not popular but it is necessary - particularly on Boxing Day which is one of the busiest shopping days.
"Normal parking controls will apply on 26 December as it is not a bank holiday.
"We will be offering free parking to motorists on 28 December instead."
Meanwhile Neil Herron, who runs the Parking Appeals website, has promised his services free of charge to anyone ticketed on Saturday.
Of the decision to charge, Mr Herron said: "With all public buildings closed on what is widely regarded as a public holiday by all, this smacks more of opportunism rather than a desire to keep traffic moving."
The following London councils will charge for parking on Saturday:
Barking and Dagenham
Barnet
Bexley
Brent
Bromley
Ealing
Enfield
Hammersmith and Fulham
Haringey
Harrow
Havering
Kensington and Chelsea
Kingston-upon-Thames
Newham
Redbridge
Cynical cash raising ploy
Penalty Claus on Boxing
The Sun
By JANE HAMILTON
Published: 26 Dec 2009
SHOPPERS could be stung at the sales today - by Scrooge officials dishing out parking tickets.
More than three-quarters of councils have decided Boxing Day is NOT a public holiday this year because it falls on a Saturday.
And they are set to clean up as shoppers innocently park without paying in areas signed "public holidays - no charge".
Despite deeming it a non-Bank Holiday, other council services like libraries and swimming pools will be CLOSED.
Last night Paul Pearson of campaign group penaltychargenotice.co.uk blasted the grasping move. He said: "Thousands of motorists will have Christmas tarnished by a £120 ticket.
"Boxing Day is a public holiday - it shouldn't not be a public holiday because it happens to be a Saturday."
Paul said drivers face more confusion because some councils DO recognise today as a public holiday and are not imposing car park fees.
Leeds, for example, in West Yorks is not charging, while their neighbour Bradford is.
In London, half of the 32 councils are allowing free parking - but the policy may not be borough-wide. To add to the muddle nationally, some authorities will waive fees on Monday instead.
Last night Bradford Council said: "Because Boxing Day falls on a weekend, we impose weekend charges."
Read more:
Watching the Watchers
Keep sending the photographs.If they maintain that parking on double yellow lines impedes the traffic flow and creates a safety hazard then we can't have one rule for one ...
"It's a new stealth tax"
A 'victim's levy now for parking offences! This is nothing more than another stealth tax.
"Oh no it isn't"insist the Government in a claim worthy of the worst pantomime and a claim few would believe.
2010 is when Britain's motorists will finally reach tipping point and begin the fightback.
Motorists face new £15 'victims levy'
BBC News 2nd January 2010
Motorists in England and Wales fined for minor offences face having to pay bigger penalties under a government scheme to compensate victims of crime.
Since 2007, a £15 surcharge has been added to the fines of all people convicted of a crime, to raise money for support services for crime victims.
Now ministers want to extend the scheme to on-the-spot fines and fixed penalty notices for a range of offences.
They say the offences that could be targeted are not victimless crimes.
Under the current scheme, anyone fined by the courts pays an extra £15.
'Stealth tax denial'
However, ministers believe the amount raised could be significantly increased if it was extended to include people issued with on-the-spot fines or fixed penalty notices.
This could include motorists caught speeding or flouting parking restrictions and those guilty of disorder offences such as shoplifting, writing graffiti or being drunk and disorderly.
Under the plans, a fine of £60 for speeding, using a mobile phone while driving or not wearing a seatbelt would be increased to £75.
Government officials deny the move amounts to a stealth tax.
They argue that such offences are not "victimless crimes", saying thousands are killed or injured on Britain's roads every year and others have their lives ruined by anti-social behaviour.
The current levy, which was introduced in England and Wales as part of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004, works in conjunction with the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme that pays compensation to the victims of violent crime.
Prior to its launch, the Home Office - which was responsible for the initiative at the time - said the surcharge was part of a series of moves to "rebalance" the criminal justice system in favour of victims.
Sunday, December 20, 2009
Will 2010 be the end of the offensive parking stealth tax?
We have evidence of malpractice in every one of the councils listed below.
The High Court case detailed at www.motoristslegalchallenge.co.uk will create the focus.
Other matters will come into the public domain in a matter of weeks.
GREEDY councils are exploiting motorists by raking in almost £2 BILLION a year in parking fees and fines.Tom Latchem
News of the World
20th December 2009
Last year drivers paid a record £1.9bn to town halls in England - 8 per cent up on the previous year and TREBLE the £638m for 1997/98 when Labour came to power.
That means around £60 a year is going straight from the pocket of every motorist into town hall coffers. Experts fear councils are ripping off car owners to plug gaps in their finances as the squeeze on public spending tightens.
The revenue bonanza is biggest in areas like central London and Brighton where parking is scarcest - and many town halls are believed to make most of their money in fines.
Figures released by the Department of Communities and Local Government do not differentiate between meter charges and penalties.
But a spokesman said: "Parking charges are a tool to manage demand for road use and should not be used for raising revenue.
Jennifer Dunn of the Taxpayers' Alliance said: "Motorists are being treated like cash cows. Too often we see unscrupulous and target-driven enforcement of parking."
Top ten revenue earners in London:
1. Westminster £180m
2. Camden £80m
3. Kensington & Chelsea £77m
4. Islington £55m
5. Wandsworth £51m
6. Hammersmith & Fulham £47m
7. Lambeth £40m
9. Ealing £30m
10. Hackney £29m.
Top ten elsewhere:
1. Brighton & Hove £38m
2. Birmingham £24m
3. Manchester £20m
4. Leeds £19m
5. Milton Keynes £16m
6. Newcastle upon Tyne £15m
7. Kent £15m
8. Bristol £14m
9. Liverpool £14m
10. City of Nottingham £13m.
Monday, December 14, 2009
"One rule for them and another for everyone else..."
Warden under fire for parking on yellow lineSunday, December 13, 2009, 07:00
OTFORD shoppers have hit out at a traffic warden who slapped parking tickets on windscreens – while blocking the traffic in the village's High Street.
Passers-by said a Sevenoaks District Council car parked on a single yellow line caused an unnecessary queue of traffic, and delayed a police car responding to an emergency siren.
The traffic warden was giving out parking tickets to drivers who were also parked in the road.
Ivonne Kaina, of London Road, Dunton Green, said she was "infuriated" by the situation, which she became aware of when she was shopping on Saturday (December 5) between 2 and 3pm.
She said: "I heard someone complaining that they got a ticket.
"We heard a police siren and when I looked out of the window the reason the police car couldn't get through was that the guy who was giving out tickets was stopping it.
"It was so cheeky. It's one set of rules for one. They are a law unto themselves."
"People are Christmas shopping – it's such a nasty thing to do at this time of year."
She added she thought the traffic warden's parked position created more problems for passing motorists than the cars which were illegally parked.
Miss Kaina had left her own car in the village car park, although she acknowledged that it was very busy at the time.
Sue Camp, who is on Sevenoaks Town Council, has previously hit out at Sevenoaks District Council over illegal parking.
She said: "I think there shouldn't be one rule for them and another for everyone else."
"No-one is meant to park there, so what gives them the right to do it?
"They should still be held accountable."
District council spokesman Daniel Whitmarsh said the photo sent in by Miss Kaina does not give the full picture as there were several illegally parked cars in front of it.
He added: "In this instance the council's civil enforcement officers were responding to a number of illegally parked vehicles on yellow lines, which were causing local traffic congestion.
"The officer parked directly behind the illegally parked cars so they would not cause additional traffic congestion and issued a total of three penalty charge notices.
"Civil enforcement officers are permitted to park in restricted areas when enforcing parking restrictions and will usually only do so if there is nowhere else to park."
Saturday, December 12, 2009
More flaws in St. Alban's Traffic Orders ... who checked?
St Albans District Council under fire again for parking blunder1:43pm Thursday 10th December 2009
By Manisha Mistry »
A REVIEW into the district council's parking enforcement which came under fire in October after a shocking blunder was revealed has discovered more flaws in the system.
The car parking working party, which met last night, discussed a report undertaken by the chief finance officer.
In October the Review revealed how the council's Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) was deemed invalid by an adjudicator at a Traffic Penalty Tribunal forcing more than £24,000 worth of unpaid fines to be waived.
Further to the details discovered at the time the fresh investigation has revealed the incorrect terminology in the TRO had been there since 2005 – longer than the council originally thought.
The officer comments: “The current problems have cost the council money and been damaging to its reputation.
“From the review it is clear that the problem of terminology in the TRO has been wrong since 2005 – when the new regime for off street parking was introduced."
Another damning finding highlights the lack of efficiency because there were no check lists and procedures which prevented this problem, or its reoccurrence.
A review of the workload was suggested and the creation of some clear check-lists.
At the time the technical error was discovered the chief executive at the council Daniel Goodwin apologised to residents.
Commenting on the results of the review, Councillor Julian Daly said: “This looks like something that did not need to happen.”
He mentioned a meeting of the council's scrutiny committee in 2007 which warned cabinet members to address the heavy workload of the council's engineering team which is responsible for the TRO.
Councillor Daly added: “Clearly this warning was ignored. The council is now paying the price both financially and in terms of its reputation for being accident prone.”
Stop your stolen car dead in its tracks ...
Car device to put brakes on thievesSunderland Echo
9th December 2009
AN INVENTOR has created a device which he says can halt a stolen vehicle anywhere in the world in seconds.
Dr Phillip Tann, 48, claims his new gadget has the potential to put car thieves out of action and massively reduce car insurance premiums.The immobilisation invention's wizardry is contained in a box less than the size of a matchbox.It allows the owner to remotely send a signal which cuts the ignition as soon as the vehicle stops.
Another success and more refunds but ...
the council is going to end up in a lot more trouble should someone who has paid a PCN take legal action or make a criminal complaint of misconduct or fraud.
The issue at the core of this is that the Traffic Order referred to the driver being responsible for the fine, not the Registered Keeper as civil parking enforcement requires. Therefore, the statement that there should not be refunds due to the fact that the person paying 'admitted liability' is offensive and wrong. If their legal document stated that the driver was responsible and they then sent a Notice to Owner claiming that the owner or registered keeper was liable, then that is a false representation. The TRO may have been 'in force' having been made but it misrepresented the position relating to the primary legislation.
Therefore, ALL monies must be refunded otherwise the council has been unjustly enriched and risks investigation by the District Auditor and, should anyone make a criminal complaint, by the Police.
The Fraud Act 2006 is explicit
2 Fraud by false representation
(1) A person is in breach of this section if he—
(a) dishonestly makes a false representation, and
(b) intends, by making the representation—
(i) to make a gain for himself or another, or
(ii) to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss.
Matters are far from concluded. The BBC report is shown below.
Parking Fine Error Costs £24,000
BBC
10th December 2009
A Hertfordshire council lost £24,000 in revenue from parking fines because enforcement orders were out of date.
St Albans Council's parking rules said a vehicle driver was liable for parking fines but it should have been the vehicle's keeper.
Colm O'Callaghan, the council's chief finance officer, said the blunder made it "impossible" to enforce the fines.
Terminology in the order had been wrong since 2005, when a new regime for off-street parking was introduced.
In a report to the council about the mistake, Mr O'Callaghan said: "Legal advice was that this did not invalidate the traffic order.
"But it did make it impossible for the council to pursue further enforcement action and brought financial cost."
Workload review
Initially the council had said it thought the cost of the error could be as high as £32,000.
In October a tribunal investigating a claim against a £50 ticket ruled that it was invalid as legal wording had not been updated.
The council has since decided to write off 1,621 penalty charge notices.
"The council is now paying the price both financially and in terms of its reputation for being accident prone"Julian Daly, Conservative group, St Albans Council
The tickets were issued at off-street car parks between 31 March 2008 and 5 November 2009.
People who have already paid the fines are considered to have admitted liability, although since the error was revealed some have submitted requests for refunds.
Mr O'Callaghan's report identified a protracted line of responsibility from the parking contract manager to the city and district engineer, who it said had a heavy workload.
In its response to the mistake, the council is to consider the creation of a clear procedure and check-list for work to be signed off and the implementation of a workload review.
Leaders blamed
The management responsible have been invited to put forward a plan to implement these recommendations.
Julian Daly, leader of the Conservative opposition group on the council, said management and the political leadership of the Liberal Democrat ruling party were responsible for the mistake.
He said: "Traffic orders were not subject to review by the council's legal team and there was some absence of prioritisation in the relevant team which contributed to the error."
He backed the call for a workload review but said the relevant portfolio holders should ensure the engineering and technical services section were adequately resourced or that its workload was reduced accordingly.
"The council is now paying the price both financially and in terms of its reputation for being accident prone," Mr Daly said.
Council writes off parking fines (05 Nov 09 Beds/Bucks/Herts )
Parking tickets could be invalid (28 Oct 09 Beds/Bucks/Herts )
Council motoring fines 'illegal' (29 May 08 UK )
'Fairer' parking deal for drivers (31 Mar 08 Wales )
Thursday, December 10, 2009
Vehicle tracker bought by bus company
30th November 2009
Vehicle tracking technology developed by a Wearside company will be used by one of Europe's biggest transport firms.
FleetM8 has landed a contract with Sunderland-based Arriva, which operates in 12 European countries.
The tracking technology will be used on the company's bus fleets in Scotland, allowing it to immediately spot when vehicles end up "crowding" by getting too close together.
FleetM8's tracker was developed by inventor Dr Phillip Tann with business partner Neil Herron, noted for his traffic campaigns.
The technology gained recognition two years ago when Dr Tann recieved a speeding ticket claimed he was doing 42mph in a 30 zone.His vehicle, however, was fitted with a prototype GPS tracking device which recorded both his location and speed, clocking him at 29.177196mph at the time he was alleged to have been speeding.
Parking goldmine lures fat cat enforcer to Westminster
Simon English
01.12.09
In the lucrative world of car parking contracts, Westminster Council is the bonanza prize, the jackpot at the end of the rainbow. Around 
600,000 vehicles come into Westminster's 8.5 square miles every day.
That's like a giant school of plankton in a small pond to your average traffic warden whale — open wide and ticket. There are too many cars chasing too few parking spaces and in the frustrations of an average working day, some drivers take a chance in the usually false hope that they might just be lucky…
The council itself says it's not legally allowed to make a profit from parking enforcement. Its “surplus income” from parking — £35 million last year, thanks very much — goes to pay for the men on the streets and for other transport projects.
For the firms running the enforcement deal, however, it's a goldmine, worth around £12 million a year. For the last seven years the contract has been held by NSL, the former services arm of National Car Parks which split from the main company and is now owned by private equity.
Now it's up for grabs. This week firms who want to bid for the right to be parking enforcer for the next four years — with an option for two more after that — have to submit their final proposals. In the running, I am told, are three firms: NSL again, Apcoa (formerly the Airport Parking Company of America), and Mouchel, a publicly listed company formed in 2003 from the merger of two engineering firms, Mouchel and Parkman.
A preferred bidder shortlist will be approved in January, with a decision taken shortly after. Mouchel is perhaps the most interesting of the three in the frame. It only entered parking enforcement relatively recently and has been making headway in winning contracts, securing deals in Newham (the so-called Olympic borough) and Hillingdon among others.
In chatting to officials about which firm might win the prestigious Westminster deal, an intriguing name came up. Stuart Lawrenson is, to those in the know, one of the most successful players in the UK parking industry — a fat cat enforcer, you might say. He is also the former chief executive of Central Parking Ltd where he was accused of misappropriating assets belonging to the American firm for his own benefit. Lawrenson resigned as a director of the company and paid £130,000, as well as forfeiting Central Parking shares, in settlement of the allegations.
In filings to the Securities & Exchange Commission, Central Parking blamed former managers of its UK arm for “unauthorised related party transactions and improper and inaccurate accounting entries”. Lawrenson is back in the game. I'm told he attended a meeting with council officials at a Westminster hotel last month to discuss the parking enforcement contract, allegedly in the pay of Mouchel.
I asked the company what role Lawrenson plays for them, and got the following: “Mouchel does not comment on the details of live procurements as these are confidential and commercially sensitive. Stuart Lawrenson is not, nor ever has been, an employee of Mouchel but works for a company that provides technology products to the parking industry. In common with other companies, we use some of these as part of our parking enforcement offer.”
Lawrenson has paid his fine and is perhaps entitled to continue his career. As long as everyone involved knows of his history, there's probably no cause for concern.
Monday, November 23, 2009
Council avoids repaying fortune in parking fees
Friday November 20, 2009
MOTORISTS have been slow to reclaim money paid to a Devon council which is believed to have been issuing invalid parking tickets.
A freedom of information request has shown that no one has yet come forward to claim a refund from Teignbridge District Council for Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs) that were issued between May 2008 and August 23 this year when a credit card surcharge was in place.
The Echo revealed earlier this year that the district council was facing the potentially huge claims for issuing PCNs, which stated the recipient would incur a 1.7 per cent administration charge if they paid by credit card.
However, this meant the overall penalty exceeded the amount that can legally be charged, leading to claims they were unlawful in their entirety.
Teignbridge District Council is currently offering refunds of just the surcharge. However, Neil Herron, of the company Parking Appeals, said the total cost of the PCN should be refunded.
During the period in question, a total of 9,877 parking tickets were issued — deriving an income of nearly £250,000.
But campaigners who questioned the legality of the charges said the authority should automatically refund motorists and be "shouting from the rooftops" instead of waiting for claims.
Mr Herron said: "The money should be refunded automatically. The council has no right to levy the charge. The PCNs are unlawful — they are not entitled to keep the money.
"The district auditor must get involved and declare the amount of money unjust enrichment and unlawful.
"I am not surprised that no one has applied for a refund. It is up to the council to write to everyone using the same form it used when it requested the money in the first place to make people aware of what they are entitled to and the procedure they must go through to claim it."
Mr Herron, who has seen several councils deal with the same problem, said Teignbridge was among the worst he had dealt with.
"There are some really good councils that, as soon as they released what had happened, volunteered the refunds and contacted the people involved," he told the Echo.
"Others ran a series of adverts in the local press while some feel they are entitled to keep it. This will come back and bite them in the long run as people have the right to their money back. If Teignbridge is saying no one has been in touch what effort have they made to contact people?
"They just need to do the decent thing. We are encouraging motorists , if they benefit from a windfall through a mistake in law, to share their good fortune with a local charity. The council should not be allowed to keep it."
It is understood an objection is currently in the hands of the district auditor who has yet to make a ruling. A Teignbridge District Council spokesman said: "In keeping with many authorities around the country Teignbridge is happy to refund credit card surcharges applied to penalty charge notices where customers have chosen to pay by card. While it isn't economical to write to individuals, we would encourage anyone who wants to claim a refund of the 1.7 per cent surcharge, worth from 43p to 60p depending on the ticket, to contact us."
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
NSL Services Ltd - Who gave you permission to talk to the TV crew?
The wardens were allowed to speak freely to the journalist with the film crew, or so they thought.
Westminster City Council outsource their parking enforcement to a company called NSL Services, previously known as NCP Services Ltd.
One CEO told the film crew about NSL's unfair practices, and how Westminster City Council for CEO's to bring in high numbers of parking tickets (PCN's). This is undercover footage of that wardens interrogation on the 1st September 2009 at NSL's Westgate head office by Kenneth Henslip NSL's Head of Professional Standards.
The CEO was not allowed representation or given the minutes of the interrogation. The Channel4 documentary is called Confessions Of A Traffic Warden, was shown at 9pm on Thursday 19th November 2009
Thursday, November 12, 2009
Camden is set to wage new war on motorists
By Susanna Wilkey
05.11.2009
Motorists in Camden were hit with a double whammy this week when the council gained new impounding powers and launched a judicial review to fight parking ticket appeals that went against them.
On Mondey the council voted to give itself new powers to seize the cars of ticketed motorists without warning. Together with Westminster Council, it will trial the project which gives them the power to impound vehicles with three or more unpaid PCNs that are not the subject of an appeal, even if they are parked legally when tracked down.
The council will be able to pick up the cars in the two boroughs and three others in London - a move which campaigners say is "draconian".
Opponents also say the scheme will affect innocent drivers because of mistakes by wardens and difficulties establishing car ownership.
To get their cars back those affected will have to pay all the fines plus towing charges, or pay a bond to release the car if they dispute the council's actions.
Paul Pearson from http://www.penaltychargenotice.co.uk/ who lives in West Hampstead and works in Marylebone, said: "This will end up persecuting the wrong people. People will have their cars towed when they sometimes don't even know they have tickets because they have been lost in the post or gone to the wrong address. This seems totally ridiculous"
Lobbyist Neil Herron, of Parkingappeals.co.uk, said: " The DVLA database is never more than 90per cent accurate. You could have people who have just bought a car and then have it towed away even though the parking tickets belong to someone else, like a previous owner. These local authorities couldn't run a whelk stall so to give them the power to tow away cars because they have three outstanding PCNs should not be happening."
The judicial review move follows two separate judgments from the Parking and Traffic Appeals Service (Patas) which ruled that a 1.3 per cent administration fee charged to those paying paring fines by credit card was illegal.
The council scrapped the policy in June but campaigners say it should pay back the £6.5 million of tickets paid out by motorists before the adjudications.
Now Camden has submitted a request for a judicial review, expected to be heard in April. A spokeswoman said: "Camden Council believes the recent decisions by Patas are legally flawed. We will be asking the High Court to review and overturn them."
Mr Herron welcomed the judicial review case as he expects the council to lose and be forced to repay the money.
He added: "I am confident the adjudicators reached the correct decision. If Camden was wholly confident, it should have continued charging. They should also ask themselves how much public money is being spent by going down this route."
But parking boss, Cllr Chris Knight, has defended both actions. He said the council believes fines paid with the credit card surcharge are still valid and the new impounding rules will help the borough catch 2,716 cars with three or more fines outstanding."
He said: "We are losing huge amounts of money through unpaid PCNs. It is a fair process and we are already undertaking pre-debt recovery programmes which identify the owners of the vehicles and the offenders if they are not the same people."
'Big brother' plan to spot-check and tow cars owing more than three fines
Ruth Bloomfield
ffic wardens in London are to do spot checks, hunting for vehicles with a backlog of unpaid tickets.Drivers who owe for more than three parking tickets or traffic fines risk having their cars impounded under the pilot, which starts on 4 January. A database of vehicles with unpaid fines is being created. Drivers whose cars are towed could end have to pay more than £500 to retrieve them.
London Councils, the umbrella group of local authorities organising the trial, says the scheme is vital to stop persistent fine evaders. It involves six boroughs: Ealing, Camden, Hackney, Hammersmith and Fulham, Wandsworth and Kensington and Chelsea. If successful it will be rolled out across the capital. Ealing has suggested a removal fee of £200 plus £40-a-day storage charges on top of the fines.
But Neil Herron, of parkingappeals.co.uk, said: "It is going to be a nightmare of red tape and litigation and smacks of Big Brother."
Parking tickets not valid
By Patrick Knox
Tuesday 10th November 2009
DRIVERS were wrongly issued with fines after experimental parking controls were found not to be valid.
Motorists were issued with tickets, totalling £1,375, for parking in controlled areas in the Penrith Road area of Brookvale, Kings Furlong and North Whitchurch.
But officers in Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council introduced the controls under the wrong legislation – meaning they could not be lawfully enforced. So far, no driver hit by a fine has been reimbursed.
Councillor Clive Sanders, Cabinet member for community safety and development, made the disclosures after being quizzed by Whitchurch borough councillor Keith Watts at a full council meeting on the total value of the fines.
Cllr Sanders said: “The professional advice available was that there was a possibility that the orders could be flawed and it was inappropriate for the council’s enforcement officers to continue issuing the fixed penalty notices.”
Of the 53 penalty notices, Cllr Sanders said 27 have been paid with a total value of £950. But he added the council has not refunded those who had paid up because it did not have enough details and was not allowed to access the DVLA database to obtain vehicle owner details. Those who have not paid have had their fines cancelled, he said.
The controls, which came into force in March, included areas of no or restricted waiting, controlled parking zones and a residents’ parking scheme.
Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council introduced the restrictions as “experimental traffic regulations” in response to parking problems in the area.
But council lawyers spotted that fines could be challenged because the controls should be enacted under section 45 of the Road Traffic Act of 1984. Parking attendants enforcing the restriction were then told to stop issuing penalty notices on September 18.
Now the council is seeking to introduce a permanent traffic order in Brookvale and Kings Furlong, Whitchurch, and the Penrith Road area of Beggarwood.
Cllr Watts, who represents the Whitchurch ward, said afterwards: “Anyone who has paid a fine should be tracked down and refunded.”
Friday, November 06, 2009
The Human Ticket Machine
'Human Ticket Machine': Traffic warden on course to hand out record-breaking 2,000 tickets in his first year on the jobBy Daily Mail
05th November 2009
Britain's most prolific traffic warden was unmasked yesterday - a Yellow Peril who has dished out over 400 tickets in his first two months on the job.
Geoffrey Stobbart, 53, dubbed the 'Human Ticket Machine' by locals, has issued 416 £70 tickets in Kettering, Northamptonshire, between August and October.
At his current rate he is on target to hand out 2,000 tickets this year - twice the rate of John Woodgate, Britain's previously toughest warden, known as 'The Terminator'.
Employed by Kettering Borough Council, Geoffrey covers 695 pay-and-display parking spaces in the town, as well as double yellow lines and surrounding residential areas.
The town had been left without a traffic warden for three months after his predecessor retired earlier this year.
Now Mr Stobbart, from Corby, s working 37 hours a week to stop motorists parking illegally across his patch - and says he is 'proud' of his performance.
But motorists and drivers' groups yesterday slammed his 'unblinking dedication to making lives a misery' and potentially threatening Christmas trade.
Gene Picton, 25, who works at a motor spares shop in Kettering, said Mr Stobbard was known as a 'parking tyrant' who ticketed his brother dropping children at nursery.
He said: 'Lots of my family members and half my customers have mentioned being ticketed by him.
'My brother was furious after he got a ticket while he was dropping his daughter off at nursery and said the guy was a parking tyrant.
'He had to pay a fine and was really angry. This guy patrols the street day and night. He's a human ticket machine.'
The Association of British Drivers said Mr Stobbart would drive shoppers and visitors out of Kettering town centre.
A spokesman said: 'If he continues to issue tickets at this rate then Kettering won't have any shoppers left - that would be crippling for local businesses at Christmas.
'The ticketing is just a money making racket for the council and is ridiculous and officious.'
Neil Herron, who runs campaign group Parking Appeals, said Kettering Borough Council needed to look very carefully at its parking regulations.
He said: 'The council should not go down the route of beating people with a big financial stick and it is very dangerous to have one individual effectively controlling town parking.
'They should take a light-foot approach in the run up to Christmas and encourage people to come into the centre not literally drive them away.'
Mr Stobbard, a father-of-five who has three grandchildren, worked as a senior foreman at an aluminium factory until he became redundant and took the warden's job.
Yesterday he defended his record - and said he is being complimented by some locals for doing his job properly.
He said: 'You would think being a traffic warden is a thankless task but I have received a lot of compliments from local residents for the improvements that have already happened.
'There hadn't been any policing of parking for so long that people became complacent and thought they could do what they liked.
'But the town centre has improved immensely already and things are much better now.
'The pedestrianised areas and the market place were a nightmare when I started - market traders said so many cars came through it was like a motorway.
'And weekends were the worst because shoppers used to abuse the residents' parking bays, which upset a lot of local people.
'I have never parked illegally and nor has my wife - I hope I am setting a good example.'
He added: 'I wouldn't call this an achievement - I want to see the number of tickets I issue go down because that means things are getting better.'
Jim Hakewill, leader of Kettering Borough Council, commended Mr Stobbard for making 'a big difference'.
Ruthless traffic warden John Woodgate, 59, held the previous record for most parking tickets issued.
He was dubbed 'the Terminator' by local motorists for issuing 11,000 tickets in 11 years in the small market town of Haverhill, Suffolk.
Sunday, November 01, 2009
Leader of Sunderland Council admits Loading Bays behind zig zags are illegal
In June of this year I reported on the illegal and dangerous road markings at a location in Sea Road, Sunderland hereIt had been the subject of a complaint going back to 2007 when John Munns from the Department for Transport had confirmed:
" Traffic signs on any road to which the public has access, including private roads, must conform to the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 and pedestrian crossing must conform to the Zebra, Pelican, and Puffin, Pedestrian Crossings Regulations and General Directions 1997 (SI 1997;2400).The combination of these regulations is not always obvious but we now understand that the zig zag should always follow the kerb-line including into any bays . Loading bays minimum width in TSRGD is 2.7m - unless it conform entirely to diagram 1032 in TSRGD. The Signs regulations always have the "loading only" legend outside the bay - authorised exceptions are very , very, raree. (sic)."
Below is the email from the Leader of Sunderland City Council after he, and the Secretary of State was put on notice that their failure to act in relation to unlawful signing at pedestrian crossings at this, and other locations in Sunderland could result in a fatality.
As I write this no action has been taken to correct the restrictions and markings on the highway and the location is illegal and dangerous.
On Saturday 17th October 2009 a 12 year old Sunderland boy was killed at a pedestrian crossing at a location in Sunderland. There are parking bays and a Bus Stop Clearway in the controlled area BEHIND the zig zags.
Perhaps the apologists for councils dumbing down signing law will now realise what happens if you allow councils to chant the mantra ... 'no reasonable person could be misled by the meaning of the sign.'
Look at the bays above. No-one could be misled by the words 'Loading Only.'
Look at the bays on the left with a big 'P' sign next to them. No-one could be 'misled' as to what it means BUT THIS IS ILLEGAL!
THE REALITY IS THAT THEY DO NOT COMPLY WITH THE LAW AND SUCH INTRANSIGENCE, RECKLESS INDIFFERENCE AND MISCONDUCT BY COUNCIL OFFICERS TOWARDS THEIR LEGAL RESPONSIBILITIES MUST BE STOPPED IMMEDIATELY AND THOSE RESPONSIBLE DISMISSED AND PROSECUTED.
neil@parkingappeals.co.uk
Date:
25th August 2009
Our ref:
9/F1/NS
Your ref:
Dear Mr Herron
SEA ROAD, FULWELL
I refer to your email of 26th April 2009 regarding the above.
I do not accept your assertions about the way in which the Council is treating this matter.
The traffic management arrangements at this location were the subject of public consultation and were introduced to help regulate the use of the highway in such a way as to provide a safe and serviceable environment in which the many competing uses of the available highway space can thrive.
Officers have informed me that the Police have not recorded any injury accidents at this location in the last 15 years.
This is a remarkably good accident record and is significantly lower than that which could be expected in a busy urban residential and shopping area. This situation is monitored on an ongoing basis by officers.
In addition, there are no complaints from residents, visitors and local businesses about the operation of the highway at this part of Sea Road.
The signing and layout at Sea Road has been reviewed and it is recognised that it is not consistent with current regulations. However, due to the success of the scheme introduced, and the potential disadvantages of making alterations, any change needs careful consideration.
Following a risk assessment and a consultation with the Department for Transport, the ‘zig-zag’ markings are to be amended, as is the signing of the loading bays.
Yours sincerely
Councillor Paul Watson
Leader of the Council
Direct Line
0191 561 1322
E-mail
cllr.paul.watson@sunderland.gov.uk
AT THE TIME OF POSTING I HAVE YET TO RECEIVE A RESPONSE FROM THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR TRANSPORT, LORD ADONIS.
