Neil Herron

The Human Ticket Machine

2009-11-06T15:36:00.002Z

'Human Ticket Machine': Traffic warden on course to hand out record-breaking 2,000 tickets in his first year on the job
By 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.

Leader of Sunderland Council admits Loading Bays behind zig zags are illegal

2009-11-01T13:47:00.007Z

In June of this year I reported on the illegal and dangerous road markings at a location in Sea Road, Sunderland here

It 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.

Parking Blunder in Devon by Exeter City Council

2009-10-31T16:03:00.003Z

In the interests of transparency, and to alert anyone who may have suffered a loss due to an unlawful parking ticket in Devon and Exeter Car Parks or anyone who has unnecessariliy paid for a parking permit, please find below a copy of the complaint to Exeter City Council's Roger Coombes.
This will allow any investigation into the legality of the Traffic Orders governing the Hospital car parks and the issuing of penalties and receiving of monies for permits and pay and display to be fully in the public domain.

Questions will also need to be raised with the Secretary of State for Transport as to what he now intends to do with regard to the Civil Enforcement Area for Devon should it be shown the he was given false reassurances by council officers.

The letter ...

Roger Coombes,
Head of Administration & Parking Services
Exeter City Council
Civic Centre
Paris Street
Exeter
Devon
EX1 1JN
28th October 2009

Dear Mr Coombes

This letter is divided into two parts:

PART I … The first part is made in response to the answers given by Exeter City Council (ECC) in reply to my Freedom of Information (FoI) request dated 6th September 2009 (copy below).
PART II … The second part is a formal complaint against Exeter City Council for maladministration in their administration of regulating the car parks on land owned by the Royal Devon & Exeter Healthcare NHS Trust (RD&E Trust) and the Devon Partnership NHS Trust (DP Trust).

* Please note that where I request information in Part I, it is to be treated as a formal request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

* Where the term “Trust’s” is used in either Part I or Part II, then this term is to be taken to mean the Royal Devon & Exeter Healthcare Trust and the Devon Partnership NHS Trust jointly.

PART I

In my FoI request I asked to be provided with a copy or copies of any contract between ECC and the RD&E Trust that empowered ECC to make a Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) under Section 35 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act (RTRA 1984) in regard of this land that is privately owned. Unfortunately ECC declined to provide any copy or copies. The reason given was that this information is exempt as it contains commercially sensitive information.

It is my understanding that any contract was never put out to tender and that there are no plans for any contract to be put out to tender in the immediate future. For these reasons I do not agree that any “commercially sensitive” exemption applies to this information and I ask once again that you provide me with the copy or copies of any contract between ECC and the RD&E Trust. I am not unreasonable and I do not mind if ECC blackout the financial figures. If you continue to decline my request then I will ask the Information Commission to assess your refusal.

I also request that you provide a copy or copies of any contracts made between ECC and the DP Trust in relation to the car parks ECC regulate on the DP Trust’s land. Once again I do not object if ECC blackout any financial figures.

I must make you fully aware that it is essential that a contract does exist in each case and that it is made under section 33(4) of the RTRA 1984. This requirement is supported by section 35(1) of the RTRA 1984. If any contract fails to have been correctly drafted then the financial repercussions for ECC could cost in excess of £8,000,000. Taking the seriousness of this matter into account you will understand that the matter of any contract or contracts is paramount and it is in ECC’s interest to clarify the legal status of any contract or contracts. Failure to provide any copies will result in inference that is likely to lead to the detriment of ECC’s reputation.

In my FoI request I specifically asked that I be provided with all plans pertaining to The City of Exeter Hospital Parking Places Order 1994 and any subsequent amendments. ECC failed to comply with this reasonable request and an offer to make a personal viewing is not an acceptable response to a request for information. Since the plans are necessary to evaluate the schedule, I must insist that ECC provide me with all plans that accompany any order relating to the land owned by RD&E Trust and the DP Trust. Any continued failure will be raised with the Information Commission. I am quite will to pay any reasonable copying and postage costs.

I also require copies of all ECC internal correspondence, made in electronic format or otherwise, that has been communicated since the 6th September 2009 and concerns the RD&E Trust car parks and the DP Trust car parks. This request also extends to all ECC correspondence sent to and received from external bodies that has been communicated since the 6th September 2009 and concerns the RD&E Trust car parks and the DP Trust car parks. I do not doubt for one moment that significant communications will have been made internally between the Parking Department, the Legal Department and senior council officials and externally between ECC and the RD&E Trust. Previous experience has alerted me to the fact that some councils believe that they can get away with disclosing sensitive information by withholding, denying or deleting it. I must clear you of any doubt that I will not hesitate to report any suspicion I have, as to ECC’s compliance with this request, to the Information Commission as well as consult with my lawyers.

In addition to the points above, I wish to submit a Subject Access Request under Section 7 of the Data Protection Act 1998 for the release of all personal data the council may hold, including emails where I am referenced or discussed. The Information Commissioner will confirm that emails also constitute structured data. Please let me know if there is a fee to be levied for this and I will forward a cheque by return.

I am sure that, in the public interest you will wish to be transparent on this issue and, if a mistake has been made, issue the necessary apologies. From experience, previous councils that have attempted to obfuscate end up creating even more problems and suffer public embarrassment and financial penalties as a result. I am sure that this council will not wish to add your name to this list of councils.

PART II

My complaint of maladministration applies to all the car park sites owned by the RD&E Trust and the DP Trust and on which ECC regulate by order, made under section 35 of the RTRA 1984.

For now I will assume that such an order is founded on a contractual agreement made under section 33(4) of the RTRA 1984. If it is later established that any contractual agreement fails to meet the legal requirement then there will be a dire need to add further to this complaint of maladministration.

In my FoI request ECC declined to answer my question seeking an explanation as to why ECC had continued to enforce the Trust’s car park sites under the provisions of the RTRA 1984 when, since the 5th May 2008, the County of Devon has been designated as a Civil Enforcement Area for parking contraventions by Statutory Instrument (S.I). ECC also declined to offer a simple view on whether the continued issue of Standard Charge Notices under the RTRA 1984 was considered by them to be lawful.

My questions were not complex and a competent council ought to know why they are enforcing parking regulations under a certain piece of legislation and certainly they ought to be able to express a view on whether their actions are lawful. The fact that ECC chose not to offer any explanation is because they are either incompetent and do not know the answers or have a cavalier and reckless approach towards their legal responsibilities. It has nothing to do with the fact that such questions are not considered to be information accessible under the FoI Act 2000 which is the excuse given.

Since ECC do not appear to know the answers I will provide them. The answer is that since 5th May 2008 ECC have been legally obliged to cease enforcing any parking contravention under the RTRA 1984 and to commence enforcement under the Traffic Management Act 2004 (TMA 2004). Therefore the continued issue since 5th May 2008 by ECC of Standard Charge Notices has been unlawful.

· Under the TMA 2004 any car park within a Civil Enforcement Area (CEA) that is regulated by a Traffic Regulation Order made under section 35 of the RTRA 1984 requires the local authority to serve penalty charge notices and thereby allowing the recipient, access to an appeal procedure that is far more favourable than the old criminalised system operated under the RTRA 1984.

· The Trust’s car park sites are clearly within the designated CEA that S.I 2008/1051 gives authority to. The only exemption is for land owned by the MoD.

· Devon County Council’s CPE application clearly instructs the Department for Transport under paragraph 3.1.1 that the CEA will include all off street car parks administered by the districts. The Trust’s car parks are administered by ECC. Paragraph 1.5 provides the definition for “the districts” and this definition includes ECC. Paragraph 3.1.4 advises that a map attached to appendix C defines the CEA and this map includes all the Exeter area. The evidence confirming the Trust’s sites are within a CEA is conclusive.

· Schedule 7, Part 1, paragraph 4(2)(d) of the TMA 2004 clearly confirms that it is a civil parking contravention to contravene section 35A of the RTRA 1984. The City of Exeter Hospital Parking Places Order 1994 clearly makes reference to section 35A in relation to contraventions and as such this is further evidence that parking enforcement should, since 5th May 2008, have been under the provisions of the TMA 2004.

· It should also be noted that the 2007 General Regulations made under the TMA 2004, quite clearly instruct under paragraph 7 that “no criminal proceedings may be instituted” within a CEA.

Now that I have helped ECC to ascertain that they have acted unlawfully since 5th May 2008, I demand that ECC publicly acknowledge their unlawful actions and that ECC make every effort to reimburse those members of the public that have, since the 5th May 2008, been required to pay an unlawful Standard Charge Notice.

Further to this, I require to know what action ECC intend to take to remedy such maladministration and what disciplinary action will be taken against those members of staff that were incompetent in their decision making to allow such a travesty to occur?

The maladministration complaint does not end here as there are further matters relating to The City of Exeter Hospital Parking Places Order 1994 to raise.

The Trust’s car park sites are regulated by a Traffic Regulation Order made under section 35 of the RTRA 1984. Section 35 makes provision for the local authority to set the charges to be paid in connection with the use of the car parks. It has come to my attention that the Trust’s staff members are charged a fee for a staff parking permit and that the total income obtained from these permit fees since 1994 is approximately £2,000,000. However, The City of Exeter Hospital Parking Places Order 1994 (the “original order”) and its subsequent amendments do not contain any provision permitting such a fee to be charged for a staff parking permit. All parking charges must be contained within the order when those charges apply to land that is regulated by the order. This does not appear to have been the case with staff parking permit fees.

My inquiries have discovered that the Trust’s seem to be allowed to regulate these permit fees independently from The City of Exeter Hospital Parking Places Order 1994. As the land is regulated by an order, this independent action is unlawful and ultra vires to what section 35 of the RTRA 1984 makes provision for.

Since the Trust’s and ECC have acted ultra vires and hence unlawfully in obtaining fees for parking without them being contained within the order then this maladministration also needs to be investigated. I urge that immediate action be taken to reimburse all current staff that have purchased staff parking permits and that appropriate action is taken to reimburse all ex-staff where they can be traced. It is important that ECC realise that although the land is privately owned, that they are legally responsible for all regulation upon it due to the order made in their name. I require to know why ECC believed it unnecessary to include these permit charges within their order and what action they will take to remedy this maladministration?

I note that “The City of Exeter Hospital Parking Places Order 1994 (Amendment) (No.4) Order 2003 attempted to amend the original order so that charging and regulation could commence at further car park sites. These being Wonford House, Cedars/Delderfield and Hospice. Unfortunately the person that drafted the amendment No 4 order failed to do it competently.

This amendment order simply advises that the area of land on plan 1 is to be increased to include these further sites and completely fails to amend column 1 of the Schedule so that these further sites are added to it. Since this amendment order failed to add the sites to the Schedule these sites are not ‘parking places’ as defined by the original order. The consequence of this incompetence is that since 4th February 2003 all income from parking tariffs and standard charges accrued from the car parks at Wonford House, Cedars/Delderfield and Hospice have been acquired without any legal foundation, making it all unlawfully derived income.

Once again an explanation from ECC is required to clarify why they failed to correctly draft the amendment No 4 order to allow lawful regulation and charging at these sites. Details are also required of what ECC intend to do to remedy this unlawful action and how they intend to compensate those members of the Trust’s staff and the general public that have been charged or penalised by ECC since 2003, when their order made no provision for this.

Another matter brought to my attention is that ECC issue a Standard Charge Notice within the trust’s car parks where a vehicle is parked beyond the time stamped on the displayed parking ticket. On close scrutiny of the original order it appears that such action by ECC is ultra vires to what power the original order and its amendments bestow.

The Standard Charge Notices issued by ECC give a list of offences numbered 1-8 (the original order under paragraph 5 only prescribes 5 offences to be listed on the Standard Charge Notice, so the increase of a further 3 offences without any legal basis is a point of further maladministration and needs to be explained). Number 2 in this list refers to a situation where “only expired tickets were displayed on the vehicle”. Neither the original order nor any of its subsequent amendments define what an expired ticket is nor do they make any reference to the term “expired” in relation to the receipt of a Standard Charge Notice. It is paragraph 4.5 within the original order that instructs when a Standard Charge is to be payable and we are told that it is when a vehicle is left “otherwise than in accordance with paragraphs 4.1 to 4.4”. These paragraphs make no reference to an “expired” ticket and therefore ECC have no enabling power to issue a Standard Charge for the reason of displaying an expired ticket.

I am also aware that ECC issue Standard Charges where a ticket is considered invalid because the vehicle has parked beyond the time stamped on the displayed ticket. Once again on close scrutiny of the original order and its amendments, it is clear that ECC is not bestowed with the legal authority to penalise in such circumstances.

Within the original order, paragraph 4.2(iv) instructs that a ticket, “shall only be valid on the date when purchased or on the dates stated on such ticket or tickets”. Therefore, so long as a ticket has the correct date it is valid and validity, according to the order, has nothing to do with the time stamped upon the ticket.

Since the original order and its amendments bestow no power on ECC to penalise “expired” tickets or tickets considered invalid due to “time” rather than “date” issues, it is reasonable to conclude that ECC have once again acted ultra vires and unlawfully. I require ECC to once again explain the reasons for their unlawful actions and to confirm how they intend to remedy this situation as well as state what action they intend to take to compensate those that have been treated unjustly by their unlawful actions.

In my FoI requests to ECC, RD&E Trust and Devon County Council, I requested copies of any consultations sent or received in regard to the alleged contract made between ECC and RD&E Trust as well as all consultations made in relation to the original order and any subsequent amendments. The result of this request was that neither ECC, RD&E Trust nor Devon County Council were able to provide a single document to prove any formal statutory consultation was ever made.

Taking this failure into consideration, it is rational to conclude that no proof could be provided because ECC did not observe its legal obligations to consult concerning the contract, the original order and its amendments.

This legal obligation is based on section 39(3) of the RTRA 1984. ECC are not permitted to exercise any power under the RTRA 1984 unless Devon County Council has given their formal consent. It must also be noted that under paragraph 6 of S.I. 1996/2849, ECC are legally obliged to consult other statutory bodies in relation to any order.

Since there is no evidence of any statutory consultation having been undertaken, it can be argued that ECC are guilty of further maladministration and any contract, order or amendment pertaining to the Trust’s car parks is unlawful. I request that ECC either provide conclusive evidence that their statutory duties were observed or offer an explanation as to why they failed in their legal duty and to elucidate on what actions they intend to take to compensate those that suffered as a consequence of any unlawful action by ECC.

From all the very serious matters raised in this letter, it is clearly evident that ECC are guilty of gross maladministration in their regulation of the Trust’s car park sites. Where ECC disagree with any statement, comment or accusation then I expect them to explicitly confirm the legal rationale behind any such disagreement.

It is unacceptable that ECC as a public authority can disregard and break the law while harshly penalising members of the public they believe to have broken the law. Not only is such behaviour unlawful, it is immoral and hypocritical and the public of Exeter deserve to learn the truth as to the extent of ECC’s maladministration.

I expect your full reply shortly.

Please acknowledge receipt of this communication and I would be grateful if you could provide contact details for the Head of Internal Audit and the District Auditor.

Yours sincerely,

Neil Herron

cc. Lord Lucas
cc. Lord Adonis, Secretary of State for Transport
cc. Sadiq Khan MP, Minister for Transport
cc. Norman Baker MP, Shadow Minister for Transport
cc. Theresa Villiers MP, Shadow Minister for Transport
cc. Complaints Department RD&E
cc. Anne Byrne, Express and Echo
cc. Marilyn Waldron, Department for Transport
cc. Bruce Luxton, Head of Policy, Exeter City Council
cc. Philip Bostock, Chief Executive
cc. Cllr. Yolonda Henson
cc. Cllr. Peter Edwards
cc. Cllr. Adrian Fullam
cc. Ben Bradshaw MP
cc. Newsdesk, BBC Spotlight

NOTES:

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

THE RESPONSE TO THE ORIGINAL FoI REQUEST

Dear Mr Herron,
Thank you for your request made under the Freedom of Information Act, received in this office on 6 September 2009.
Please see below the responses to the questions you have raised (highlighted in blue).
If you have any complaints about the way your request has been handled please write to the Complaints Monitoring Officer of the City Council or complete the online complaint form that can be found at www.exeter.gov.uk/complaints. If your complaint is not resolved to your satisfaction you have the right to apply to the Information Commissioner for a decision.
Kind regards
Carrie

Carrie-Anne Bainbridge
Policy Officer
Exeter City Council
Civic Centre
Paris Street
Exeter, EX1 1JN
Tel: 01392 265875
Fax: 01392 265268

From: Neil Herron [mailto:neil@parkingappeals.co.uk] Sent: 06 September 2009 14:32To: Parking EnforcementCc: Luxton, Bruce; 'Parking Appeals'Subject: FW: Devon CC Traffic Order

F.A.O. Freedom of Information OfficerExeter City CouncilCivic CentreParis StreetExeterDevonEX1 1JNUnited Kingdom

6th September 2009

Dear Sir / Madam,

I hereby request under the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 that you release all the information detailed below:

1) Please confirm the name and locations of all the RD&E hospital car park sites in which Exeter City Council enforce parking regulations and issue a standard charge notice where it is deemed that a parking contravention has occurred.
Exeter City Council enforces regulations at the Wonford site (including the Orthopaedic Unit) and Heavitree site.

2) In relation to each of the above named sites, please provide full copies of any contract or contracts between Exeter City Council and the NHS Trust that enables such enforcement to be undertaken by Exeter City Council on land owned by the NHS Trust.
I am unable to provide copies of the agreements between Exeter City Council and the RD&E Hospital as these are exempt under Section 43 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, because they contain commercially sensitive information.

3) If any contract was necessary, please confirm whether the contract or contracts in each case required consultation with any other party and if so please confirm their name and provide copies of all correspondence in regard to all consultations undertaken.
The Council does not hold this information.

4) Please provide a full copy (inclusive of site location maps) of ‘The City of Exeter Hospital parking Places Order 1994’ and in addition please provide full copies (inclusive of site location maps) of any order or notice that has since revoked, amended or varied the 1994 order.
I have sent you a hard copy of 'The City of Exeter Hospital Parking Places Order 1994' and amendments (No. 1-7). Please note, if you would like to view the plans which accompany the Order and amendment No. 4, please contact me to arrange a suitable time to view them at the Council's Customer Service Centre.

5) Please confirm whether any other parties were consulted in relation to making the 1994 order and any of the orders or notices revoking, amending or varying the 1994 order. In each case where consultation did occur please confirm the name of the party or parties consulted and provide full copies of all correspondence.
The Council does not hold this information.

6) Please confirm the name of the Head of Parking Services at the time when CPE (Civil Parking Enforcement) commenced.
The Council's Head of Parking, Engineering & Business Support is Roger Coombes and he was in post at the time the Council acquired CPE responsibilities in May 2008.

7) Please confirm the experience and qualifications held by the person named above that made his or her superiors consider this person suitably proficient to implement CPE.
I am unable to provide details of his experience and qualifications because it is exempt under Section 40(2) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, as it is personal information. Section 40 of the Act states that information does not have to be released if it would contravene the Data Protection Act 1998.

8) Please explain why Exeter City Council has continued to enforce the RD&E hospital car park sites using a standard charge under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 when, since 5th May 2008, the County of Devon has been designated a Civil Parking Enforcement area under the provisions made in the Traffic Management Act 2004.
This is not a request for information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

9) Please confirm whether Exeter City Council consider the issue of standard charges under the RTRA 1984 within the hospital car park sites since 5th May 2008 to be lawful and if they do then please explain on what legal basis this belief is held.
This is not a request for information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

10) Please confirm the number of standard charges issued by Exeter City Council within the hospital sites since 5th May 2008.
2,036

11) Please confirm the total revenue raised from these standard charges since 5th May 2008.
£33,498

12) Please confirm the total number of standard charges issued by Exeter City Council within the hospital sites since the commencement of the 1994 Hospital Parking Places Order.
14,080 (this includes the figure in 10 above)

13) Please confirm the total revenue raised from standard charges since the commencement of the 1994 Hospital Parking Places Order.
£177,834 (this includes the figure in 11 above)

14) Please confirm the total revenue raised within the hospital car park sites from parking tariffs since the commencement of the 1994 Hospital Parking Places Order.
The Council does not hold this information. This question should be re-directed to the RD&E Foundation Trust.

15) Please confirm the number of standard charges issued within the hospital car park sites since the commencement of the 1994 Hospital Parking Places Order that were for displaying an expired ticket.
The Council does not hold this information.

16) Please confirm the total revenue raised within the hospital car park sites since the commencement of the 1994 Hospital Parking Places Order from standard charges issued for displaying an expired ticket.
The Council does not hold this information. This question should be re-directed to the RD&E Foundation Trust.

*NB: Where appropriate in each case above, where you are unable to provide an exact figure please submit an approximation.

Please acknowledge receipt of this email and comply with this request within the statutory time of 20 working days.

Yours faithfully,

Neil Herron

Letter Delay Man Wins Speeding Case

2009-10-30T22:13:00.005Z

Letter delay man wins speed case
BBC 29th October 2009

Mr Gidden was caught going at 85mph on the M180 motorway
A man charged with speeding has had his conviction quashed because a postal strike led to his notification letter being delivered too late.

Peter Gidden, 48, of Dodworth, South Yorkshire, received his letter two days late after a postal strike in 2007.
The law states that police must send notice of intention to prosecute within 14 days of an alleged offence.
On Thursday the High Court ruled that the conviction was not legal because the time limit had not been met.

Mr Gidden was caught on a speed camera doing 85mph (137km/h) on the M180 in Lincolnshire in October 2007.
But a backlog of mail caused by a postal strike at the time held up the letter sent by police.
'Matter of principle'
He received it after 16 days had passed.

Following his decision, Lord Justice Elias said the case was relevant to the current postal strikes and said the law may have to be revised to avoid similar issues in the future.

He said: "The authorities must adopt other means of warning, if they are to avoid the risk of late delivery.
"Alternatively, the remedy lies in the hands of Parliament by amending...the 1988 [Road Traffic Offenders] Act."

Mr Gidden had previously appealed against the conviction at Grimsby Crown Court and Scunthorpe Magistrates' Court.
The High Court quashed his conviction and set aside fines and legal costs totalling £680. They also wiped three penalty points from his licence.
His legal fees of £8,000 will be paid for from public funds.

"In a way this is a matter of principle", Mr Gidden said.
"Law enforcers have to work within the law to gain the respect of the general public."

THE FULL PA PRESS REPORT IS BELOW:
Source: Press Association 29th October 18.05

PETER GIDDEN APPEAL

A motorist had a speeding conviction quashed by the High Court today (29/10/09) - because a 2007 postal strike led to the late delivery of a crucial prosecution document. Motoring laws might now have to be amended to prevent other drivers attempting to take advantage of similar late deliveries during the current or future mail strikes.
A statutory notice was sent warning Peter Gidden, 48, who runs his own specialist Toyota sports car workshop, that he had been caught by a speed camera and the police intended to prosecute, but it arrived two days late. The law states that such notices must be delivered within 14 days.
Gidden was jubilant after the judges allowed his appeal against Grimsby Crown Court's decision in February to uphold a speeding conviction imposed by Scunthorpe magistrates last October.
He faced prosecution under the 1988 Road Traffic Offenders Act. The judges quashed his conviction and set aside fines and legal costs totalling #680. They also wiped out the three penalty points endorsed on his licence and awarded him legal costs out of public funds.
Gidden said he had been driving on the M180 in Lincolnshire at 8.10am on October 6 2007 when a speed camera recorded him as exceeding the speed limit, clocking him at 85mph in the inside lane.
He said he had unsuccessfully fought his case in person before the magistrates and the Crown Court.
He then employed a legal team led by barrister Archie Maddan to fight his case in the High Court at a cost of some £8,000.
Gidden said: "In a way this is a matter of principle. Law enforcers have to work within the law to gain the respect of the general public.
"In many ways I think they are losing the respect of the middle-class general public which they have always needed, and had, in this country."
In his ruling, Lord Justice Elias said Gidden's appeal "must succeed", and Mr Justice Openshaw agreed.
Lord Justice Elias said: "The notice of intended prosecution was not sent in time and could not be regarded as having been properly served. "It follows that the conviction must be set aside."
He added: "I appreciate that this construction of the legislation may create problems for the police and prosecuting authorities, particularly when the postal service is on strike with the inevitable delays in delivery.
"The authorities must then adopt other means of warning, if they are to avoid the risk of late delivery.
"Alternatively, the remedy lies in the hands of Parliament by amending... the 1988 Act. "It is not, however, for the courts to overcome the resulting inconvenience by distorting the clear language which Parliament has adopted." The judge said alternatives included recorded delivery services or registered post, which were governed by different rules.
The one sent to Mr Gidden, of High Street, Dodworth, near Barnsley, South Yorkshire, took 16 days because of the backlog of undelivered mail built up after the strike in 2007.
Lord Justice Elias, sitting with Mr Justice Openshaw, ruled today the whole prosecution process was defective because the time limit had not been met, and Mr Gidden's conviction must be quashed.
He rejected arguments supported by lower courts that so long as prosecution warning notices were posted within 14 days - so that in ordinary circumstances they would arrive in time - they were deemed to have been properly served. Lord Justice Elias said: "This case raises an issue of some topicality given the current postal strike and is of no mere small interest."
He warned the police and prosecuting authorities not to use the first class post and said they must adopt other means of delivering "statutory notices of intended prosecution" (NIPs) if they were to avoid the risk of late delivery.
John Josephs, solicitor for Mr Gidden, said later: "One can only speculate about the impact of today's judgment.
"The police are aware of this situation. The Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) has been advising their members not to use first class post for NIPs." Mr Josephs said today's case was unusual in that it had been conceded at the Crown Court that Mr Gidden's warning notice had arrived late because of industrial action.
He predicted that, in other cases, where there had been no such concession, it might still prove difficult for defendants to convince the courts notices had genuinely arrived out of time.
Mr Josephs said: "This judgment is not a cheat's charter.
"It means that if a notice is served late because of a postal strike, or for some other reason, it will still be up to the defendant to prove that before the court.
"This is not a floodgates case, but postal strikes may strengthen a defendant's claim not to have been properly served with a notice."
The court heard that first class post deliveries for NIPs was first allowed under an amendment introduced by the 1994 Criminal Justice and Public Order Act. Prior to that notices were always served via registered post or recorded delivery, where there was a record to show they had actually been sent. Registered or recorded items are deemed to be served if sent to a defendant's last known address, even if they are returned as undelivered or not received for any other reason.
Lord Justice Elias suggested the same deeming provisions had not been extended to the first class post because of an "oversight".
But he said he could not rule out that it may have been deliberate Government policy, and it was for Parliament to make any changes that might now be necessary.

St. Alban's Parking Tickets

2009-10-30T22:11:00.003Z

Just a quick line for everyone who has had a ticket in St. Alban's and wants to keep updated with developments.
Just drop me a line at neil@parkingappeals.co.uk and we will bring you the latest news on refunds.
Neil H

St. Alban's Parking Blunder ... investigation will reveal £millions of refunds

2009-10-27T12:59:00.003Z

St Albans District Council forced to refund penalties following blunder
St. Alban's and Harpenden Review
Tuesday 27th October 2009
By Manisha Mistry »

DRIVERS given parking tickets by St Albans District Council could be entitled to a refund following a massive admin blunder.

The authority came under fire this week after a Traffic Penalty Tribunal investigating one man's £50 fine deemed all enforcements since March 30, 2008 invalid.

It was on this day that the district council's Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) - which is updated every year - came into force, however, the legal wording was not amended in line with new details in the Traffic Management Act 2004 (TMA).

Neil Herron the founder of national organisation Parking Appeals, which helps drivers overturn parking tickets, revealed all to the Review, exposing the severity of the district council's mistake.
Documents revealed to the Review disclose the adjudicator's decision which states: “Many of the provisions of the TRO were out of date and flawed rendering it substantially ineffective almost from the moment it came into operation.”

District council chief executive Daniel Goodwin has received a letter from Mr Herron informing him of the appeal decision and also of the stark reality that the council must suspend all enforcement of its off-street car parks covered by this invalid order. Meanwhile all pay and display machines must be covered up.

Mr Herron said: “As many across the country continue to suffer from aggressive stealth parking enforcement by many local authorities Christmas has come early for the city's motorists.”

A number of questions will remain unanswered until the district council reveals how many penalties have been issued since March 2008.

District council spokeswoman Davina Mansell said it would not be able to immediately comment on the story as Mr Goodwin is currently away.

Christmas comes early in St. Alban's ...

2009-10-26T20:23:00.013Z

Santa Claus delivers Credit Crunch Christmas Bonus
As many across the country continue to suffer from aggressive stealth tax parking enforcement by many local authorities Christmas has come early for one city's motorists.

A recent decision by a Traffic Penalty Tribunal adjudicator has ruled the City and District of St. Alban's (Off Street Parking Places) Order 2008 INVALID.

This decision has far reaching implications because it follows similar drafting of previous orders and the 2009 Order follows the 2008 and all make reference to 'driver liability.'

Under Civil (formerly Decriminalised) Parking Enforcement it is the owner (or Registered Keeper) who is liable for the Penalty Charge NOT the driver. This fact is pretty fundamental and it is either crass incompetence, intransigence or arrogance that this council has not seen fit to get their own legal house in order since DPE powers were granted on 1st October 2004.

A full copy of the decision is shown below. The implications for the local authority are:

enforcement in ALL the off-street car parks must be suspended immediately.

ALL monies derived from PCNs MUST be refunded.

ALL monies derived from permits MUST be refunded.
ALL pay and display revenue MUST be refunded or given to charity.
There must be a full, external investigation to ensure that no-one else is exposed to the risk of a loss from invalid legal instruments drafted by the council officers and that includes all aspects of the operation of the parking regime.

However, there are even more serious implications because the council informed the Department for Transport in advance of being granted DPE powers that this (checking of the lines, signs and TROs) had been done. Heads will have to roll and questions will have to be asked of the highly paid officials.

The letter to the Chief Executive to cease enforcement will be on his desk first thing in the morning. Meanwhile, anyone with a PCN drop us a line at enquiries@parkingappeals.co.uk

A list of the PCN numbers in the 'hotspot' car parks is shown below along with a full list of all off street car parks.

The adjudicator also ruled the PCN non-compliant so that has the potential to impact on all on-street PCNs as well.

‘Popular’ Car Parks in 2007 –PCNs issued

• Adelaid Street 113
• Amenbury Lane 713
• Batchwood Hall 298
• Bowers Way East (Harpenden) 566.
• Bowers Way West (Harpenden) 1047
• Bricket Road 771
• Civic Centre 1540
• Drovers Way 182
• Gombards 775
• Verulamium 598
• Westminster Lodge 1777
• Bowers Way East (Harpenden) 566
• Bowers Way West (Harpenden) 1047

NOTE: These are just ‘popular hotspots for issuing PCNs,
9993 PCNs from just these in 2007
How many in 2008 and how may this year ?
How many since October 2004 ?

WESTMINSTER LODGE CAR PARKS, ST ALBANS
LYDEKKER CAR PARK HARPENDEN
BATCHWOOD HALL CAR PARKS
CHURCHEND CAR PARK SANDRIDGE
CRAVELLS ROAD CAR PARK HARPENDEN
EAST LANE CAR PARK WHEATHAMPSTEAD
HASELDINE ROAD CAR PARK LONDON COLNEY
HIGH STREET CAR PARK (VILLAGE HALL) REDBOURN
MARQUIS LANE CAR PARK HARPENDEN
NOMANSLAND COMMON CAR PARK WHEATHAMPSTEAD
PARK STREET CAR PARK (opposite ‘Swan’ Public House)
THE RIDGEWAY(Library) CAR PARK ST ALBANS
SOUTHVIEW ROAD CAR PARK HARPENDEN
ADELAIDE STREET CAR PARK ST ALBANS
AMENBURY LANE CAR PARK HARPENDEN
BOWERS WAY EAST CAR PARK HARPENDEN
BOWERS WAY WEST CAR PARK HARPENDEN
CLARENCE PARK CAR PARK ST ALBANS
BRICKET ROAD NORTH cAR PARK ST ALBANS
CIVIC CENTRE THREE LEVEL CAR PARK ST ALBANS
ST ALBANS CITY CENTRE MSCP DROVERS WAY
GOMBARDS CAR PARK ST ALBANS
LONDON ROAD CAR PARKS ST ALBANS
ST ALBANS CITYCENTRE MSCP
RUSSELL AVENUE SECTION ST ALBANS
TOWNSEND AVENUE CAR PARK ST ALBANS
VERULAMIUM CAR PARK ST ALBANS

Council officers create false documents

2009-10-01T08:10:00.003+01:00

Wonder how many other council officers have done something similar?
The District Auditor's Report can be read here

Council guilty of bogus report
SEA DEFENCES ... Maribe Drive in June 2004
14 December 2004

SCARBOROUGH Council wrote a bogus report and broke the law over contracts for its sea defence scheme, a shocking new report reveals today.
The Audit Commission has said the council failed to put contracts out to tender, which is against the law, and ignored concerns of its legal staff and external lawyers. The Commission's report says the Government could now decide to withdraw part of its funding for the scheme.

This could mean taxpayers having to foot a £3.1 million bill for preliminary work on the Marine Drive project by the council's consultants, plus fees. The council gave the work to its favoured consultants High Point Rendel – and an officer compiled a bogus report to justify the awarding of the contract. High Point Rendel has now doubled its charges from £1.2 million to £2.4 million. Senior Scarborough Council members today said they are planning an internal investigation.

Scarborough Council has said people "should not assume" that tax payers will have to foot the bill.Its group leaders are likely to recommend a full investigation be carried out during a meeting of the cabinet later this month.

The auditor's report states: "In relation to several coastal protection schemes there is a compelling case for bringing to the attention of the public what I consider to be significant shortcomings in the way the council managed the projects and failed to fully protect the interests of local and national taxpayers. "In my view the adequacy of the appointment process, the specification and the terms agreed with High Point Rendel were not sufficiently robust."

A bogus 'best value evaluation' exercise was prepared by an officer to justify the award of work to High Point Rendel. Procurement regulations were not complied with and in my opinion the appointment was unfair and unlawful. "The terms and conditions of the Government grant have not been met and there is a risk of the council now having to finance the advice and supervision costs. "The failure to enter into a lawful and fair contractual relationship with High Point Rendel has exposed the council to the unnecessary risk of financial loss and poor value for money."

Other schemes awarded to the company and which have been found to have broken procedure are Holbeck to Scalby Mills strategy, Robin Hood's Bay and the Haggerlythe, and Staithes Harbour.

Councillor jailed for bribery

2009-09-26T11:29:00.003+01:00

Perhaps a bright spotlight will be shining on elected members and officers elsewhere in the country very soon.
Question is 'will we have to build more prisons?'

Ex-councillor jailed over bribery
BBC News

Jeremy Baker had denied taking two bribes totalling £750
A former Portsmouth city councillor has been jailed for a year after being found guilty of accepting a bribe.

Jeremy Baker, 47, from Cosham, was convicted of accepting £500 for making sure a planning decision for a property developer got through.

A secret film of the incident was shown to jurors at Winchester Crown Court during Baker's trial.
He was convicted of a corruption charge but cleared of another. They related to his time on the planning committee.

Estate agent David Maunder made the recording in an agreement with a property developer who felt he was poorly treated by planners, jurors were told.

The developer felt aggrieved about the planning committee's dealings over his three properties in London Road, St Helens Parade and Kingston Parade, the court heard.

On one occasion, Mr Maunder said to Baker, "right I've got a little something for you" before counting £500 out on the table, jurors were told.

Baker, who was cleared of taking a £250 bribe, was jailed for a year on Thursday.

Motorists could be in line for parking fine refund

2009-09-25T12:09:00.003+01:00

Herald Express
21 September 2009

MOTORISTS in Teignbridge who have received parking tickets could be eligible for a refund after a surcharge on payment by credit card was deemed illegal.
Penalty Charge Notices that were being issued by Teignbridge District Council stated that the recipient would incur a 1.7 per cent administration charge if it was paid by credit card.
However, this meant the penalty exceeded the amount prescribed by law and rendered the notices unlawful.

Dawlish resident and long-time parking campaigner Peter Harry fell victim to the extra charges and brought it to the attention of Neil Herron, who runs a business called Parking Appeals.
Following the revelation, a spokesman for Teignbridge Council said it had stopped making the charge on August 13 this year, 'as soon as we were made aware of a decision relating to another authority's charges'.

He said: "The small credit card surcharge on penalty charge notices was applied in good faith, and in common with many authorities and businesses."

A freedom of information request asking when the surcharge was introduced, the total number of penalty notices issued and the income derived from them, has now been submitted to the district council.

Mr Herron has encouraged everyone who has been issued with a ticket since the surcharge was introduced to apply for a refund.
He said: "Councils are not permitted to charge a surcharge for parking fines and if they do then the motorist is entitled to his money back.
"This is the first case we are aware of in Devon but four boroughs in London we took to task, issued £19.4m worth of parking tickets this way over a period extending from six months to two years.
"All monies must be refunded where the charge was applied whether the recipient paid by credit card or not, as it is the PCN that is unlawful."

Mr Harry claimed that the tickets being issued by Teignbridge District Council at present were still invalid.

He said: "I purposely got another ticket after they said it had been withdrawn and all the council appear to have is use a black felt tip pen to cross off the information about the surcharge on the notice.
"It is a legal document and they can not just tamper with it. If you are named on a will you can not cross someone's name out with a black pen. Until they issue a new stock, all penalty charge notices that are given out will continue to be unlawful."

'Credit card surcharge makes parking tickets illegal and refundable'

2009-09-25T11:59:00.006+01:00

Express & Echo
21 September 2009

MOTORISTS in Devon who have received parking tickets could be eligible for a refund after a surcharge on payment by credit card was deemed illegal.

Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs) that were being issued by Teignbridge District Council stated that the recipient would incur a 1.7 per cent administration charge if it was paid by credit card.
However, this meant the penalty exceeded the amount prescribed by law and rendered the notices unlawful.

Dawlish resident and long-time parking campaigner Peter Harry fell victim to the extra charges and brought it to the attention of Neil Herron, who runs a business called Parking Appeals.
Following the revelation, a spokesman for Teignbridge Council said it had stopped making the charge on August 13 this year “as soon as we were made aware of a decision relating to another authority’s charges”.

A freedom of information request asking when the surcharge was introduced, the total number of penalty notices issued and the income derived from them has now been submitted to the district council.

The spokesman said: “The small credit card surcharge on PCNs was applied in good faith, and in common with many authorities and businesses.”

Mr Herron has urged everyone who has been issued with a ticket since the surcharge was introduced to apply for a refund.

He said: “Councils are not permitted to charge a surcharge for parking fines and if they do then the motorist is entitled to his money back.
“This is the first case we are aware of in Devon but four boroughs in London we took to task issued £19.4m worth of parking tickets this way over a period extending from six months to two years.
“All monies must be refunded where the charge was applied whether the recipient paid by credit card or not, as it is the PCN that is unlawful.”

Mr Harry added that the tickets being issued by Teignbridge District Council at present were still invalid.
He said: “I purposely got another ticket after they said it had been withdrawn and all the council seems to have done is used a black felt tip pen to cross off the information about the surcharge on the notice.
“It is a legal document and they can not just tamper with it. If you are named on a will you can not cross someone’s name out with a black pen.
“Until they issue a new stock, all penalty charge notices that are given out will continue to be unlawful.”

Manchester City Council MUST refund all the money

2009-09-19T07:57:00.004+01:00

There are two angles to this story which need further investigation:

1. The statement "We will look at each ticket on a case by case basis," by Assistant Chief Executive Vicky Rosin is outrageous and could lead to any unlawfully charged motorist, ratepayer or councillor making a complaint of misconduct in public office. Why would the motorist need to contact the council? The council have their details.
The council are aware that the Penalty Charges were unlawful.
The council are aware that they cannot retain unlawfully derived income.
The District Auditor needs to be contacted immediately.

2. The 'independent' Traffic Penalty Tribunal is funded solely from PCN revenue at the rate of 60p per PCN. They will have received £10,800 from Manchester's unlawful PCNs and will therefore have been similarly 'unjustly enriched.' As the lid starts coming off this whole sorry can of worms our elected representatives will be forced to initiate an inquiry into why all of the employees of the 'independent' Traffic Penalty Tribunal are actually employed by Manchester City Council.

18,000 drivers had illegal fines
BBC News 18th September 2009

The council's cameras were not certified until May 2007
More than 18,000 fines handed to motorists caught driving in bus lanes in Manchester were illegal, the local authority has admitted.

The drivers were all caught out by cameras between October 2006 and May 2007 - before they were approved for use in bus lanes.

Manchester City Council believed the cameras could be retrospectively certified - but lawyers ruled it out.

It could now face a payout of more than £544,000 to drivers who were caught.
All bus lane cameras in the city have had Department for Transport approval since 24 December 2008.

Administrative error
The uncertified cameras came to light during a review of its bus lane enforcement.
Vicky Rosin, assistant chief executive, said the "deeply regrettable administrative oversight" took place in the early stages of bus lane enforcement.
"We have taken steps to notify the public as soon as this technicality came to our attention. We apologise for this mix-up," said Ms Rosin.

People who think they have been issued with a penalty charge notice by one of the cameras during the relevant period have been advised to contact the council.
"We will look at each ticket on a case by case basis," she added.
"However, we want to remind people that all of our current bus lane enforcement cameras have full approval and we remain determined to ensure that bus lanes stay free-flowing for the benefit of public transport users and to help prevent congestion."

Are hundreds of Bournemouth parking fines set to be refunded?

2009-09-17T11:40:00.003+01:00

Daily Echo
By Julie Magee

HUNDREDS of motorists stung by parking fines after being caught on film by Bournemouth council’s camera car could receive refunds after a landmark legal ruling.
A tribunal has ruled that unless local authorities have put up signs warning drivers the ‘spy cameras’ are in operation, tickets are invalid.

A camera car scheme was launched in Bournemouth on June 17 to target drivers who park at bus stops and outside schools. Warning signs were not erected.
In the past seven weeks 370 drivers, including disabled Southbourne man Roger Ryder, were caught parking at bus stops.
Eleven motorists were captured on camera parking at school entrances. Each received a £70 fixed penalty notice through the post.
Retired businessman Mr Ryder, 65, didn’t realise his red Jaguar had been photographed on July 7. He said: “I popped into the Co-op store in Tuckton for a newspaper – there wasn’t anywhere else near the shop to park.
“I was shocked when the fine notice dropped through my door. I paid it within a couple of days so it cost me £35 instead of £70, which is the penalty if you don’t pay within 30 days.
“I’ll definitely be appealing, now I know what has happened elsewhere. There weren’t any signs saying the camera car was operating in the area and I think that is wrong. Motorists should be warned.”

The ruling came after businesswoman Rachel Johnson received three £70 parking fines in the same week after being snapped by a ‘spy camera’ in Merseyside.
Ms Johnson, 34, who runs an off-licence, challenged Wirral Borough Council and took her case to a Traffic Penalty Tribunal. All three fines were quashed.

The tribunal ruled that the tickets were invalid because of the lack of signage warning motorists they might be photographed.
The ruling could open the floodgates for thousands of other appeals from motorists across the UK.

Following the case Wirral council launched a review into the way it uses its ‘spy car’ to enforce parking regulations.
Bournemouth council confirmed yesterday that there are no signs warning motorists of the camera car but stressed that the vehicle was marked with “camera enforcement signage.”

Head of transport James Duncan said: “We believe that all the signage associated with the Traffic Regulations Orders in Bournemouth meets with the requirements but keep everything under constant review. The tribunal decision related to a different situation; we do not use the camera car for that purpose. In Bournemouth we do not currently use the vehicle in stationary mode, unlike the case in Wirral.”

He added that the council would not be issuing any refunds.

Cheltenham fall foul of credit card ruling ... how much will they have to refund?

2009-09-15T22:18:00.002+01:00

Lawless, unaccountable and a belief that they are above the law. Time now for a full Parliamentary Inquiry into parking enforcement. How many credit card surcharge PCNs went before the blind and blinkered Traffic Penalty Tribunal adjudicators without them even looking at the PCN?

Remember that the Traffic Penalty Tribunal receives 60p from every PCN issued so if a council has been issuing unlawful PCNs then the money they derive is unlawfully derived. Where does that leave the Traffic Penalty Tribunal's 60p ... ultra vires also so their accounts need to be challenged. Question is ... who can challenge their accounts? More to be revealed.

Meanwhile, to all those council officers out there with a social conscience ... keep the information coming.

Ruling forces car park cards rethink
Tuesday, August 11, 2009,
Gloucestershire Citizen

CHELTENHAM Borough Council is reviewing its policy of imposing a credit card surcharge on parking fines.
At present, the council charges a fee of 1.35 per cent if motorists try to pay fines on a credit card.
But, following a test case in Camden, London, which ruled that surcharges for those who paid by credit card were unfair, it is reviewing its policy.

Parking manager Jason Benjamin said: ''We will be reviewing our position when we receive more information from the test case ruling."

Gloucester City Council has already ditched its surcharge of 1.8 per cent after the case.

It also handles parking enforcement for Forest of Dean District Council.
But it would not confirm whether motorists who had already paid the charges would be refunded.
A spokesman said: "The traffic penalty tribunal contacted all councils following a recent appeal handled by them.
"When looking into this case they advised councils that charges for credit card payments should be removed from penalty charge notices.
"Gloucester City Council is working with the bank which handles the credit card payments on its behalf to remove charges from penalty charge notices."

Cotswold District Council, Tewkesbury Borough Council and Stroud District do not have the surcharge.

The test case involving Camden challenged the 1.3 per cent and was upheld by the adjudicator.
The ruling applies to all fines imposed by local authorities, including those outside the capital which have been given the right to police parking and keep the fines.

It also applies to fines imposed by councils for "moving motoring offences", such as entering a box junction.
The adjudicator said councils could not demand money in addition to the fine for the offence itself.
As a result of the ruling, councils that imposed the surcharges face an avalanche of claims from motorists.
An AA spokesman said: "These credit card charges have been outrageous. Councils have got their fingers burned.
"It shows the extent to which councils have been acting as a law unto themselves.
"We expect councils across the country to stop these surcharges straight away or they will face thousands of appeals."

Parking ticket refunds ... councils consulting lawyers across the country ...

2009-09-13T19:13:00.010+01:00

Sources within councils reveal that many councils are so concerned about claims for refunds that they are taking independent legal advice, especially ones whose officers have been flagrantly disregarding signing law and continuing to enforce restrictions known to be unlawful. However, the advice coming back is not what they want to hear and Woolwich Equitable Building Society v The Inland Revenue Commissioners is being cited by counsel to councils as the binding authority which will force many of them to refund £millions.

The credit card surcharge problem revealed in our Camden and London borough expose is now becoming a Sword of Damocles for some councils and officers outside of London. Every council has immediately withdrawn the surcharge, apart from one, when brought to their attention, so misconduct in public office charges may simply be reserved for the ones who think that they are above the law. However, council officers who have been condoning enforcing restrictions known to be unlawful had better start checking their own household insurance policies because there will be no council legal and financial indemnity should it be shown that they were the 'controlling minds' behind illegal enforcement. There are many who do not want to be standing next to their council's 'Captain Smith' and are collecting their own lifebelts. There is more than one iceberg on the horizon ...

Clarification of one of the points below. PATAS adjudicators have ruled that the PCN is unlawful regardless of whether payment was made by credit card.
Therefore, ALL paid PCNs detailed below are recoverable andthe council has no legal right to the monies it retains. For more information contact enquiries@parkingappeals.co.uk

4,700 could get parking rebates because surcharges broke the rules
Halifax Courier

11th September 2009
By Michael Peel

AROUND 4,700 motorists who paid parking fines using credit cards could be entitled to a rebate.
They account for 10 per cent of the 47,000 drivers fined since 2006. The Courier reported last month how the 2.6 per cent surcharge on credit card payments contravenes Department of Transport guidelines and was recently scrapped.

Figures obtained under the Freedom of Information Act show that since the council took over responsibility for parking enforcement in November 2006, it has raised £1,278,000 in fines.That follows the issuing of 47,000 parking contravention notices.

The total income from credit cards during that period was £123,400 of which £3,200 came from the handling fee.

Car parking campaigner Neil Herron, a director of Parking Appeals Ltd, has threatened to take another council to the High Court over the issue and has also written to the council's chief executive Owen Williams to complain.

The Parking and Traffic Appeals Service adjudicator Michael Greenslade ruled earlier this year that parking tickets issued by Camden Council were invalid if they included a credit card surcharge. According to a Calderdale spokesman, the council had always imposed the charge. It was removed it after the council received the results of a traffic penalty tribunal, held in Bristol.

Figures show that total income from parking fines is falling from £551,752 in 2007/8 to £428,225 last year.

During the first five months of this year, the council received £153,000.

Another big parking High Court case set to expose the 'independent' parking adjudication service

2009-09-02T08:39:00.003+01:00

It has taken years to force Manchester City Council to admit that all Traffic Penaltty Tribunal staff are employed by the council. Do you perceive that you will get a fair hearing?

Boost for legal bid to win back millions in parking ticket refunds
Yorkshire Post
31 August 2009
By Alexandra Wood

A LANDMARK parking ticket case which could see millions of pounds being refunded to motorists has been given a major boost.
The legal bid by engineer Glenn Dickinson, who was landed with five parking tickets after parking on a verge near his home in Hull, will be heard by the High Court later this year.Mr Dickinson, 62, believes the system where tickets are issued by councils and policed by a body called the Traffic Penalty Tribunal, is illegal.

Now new information has come to light which raises fresh doubts about the independence of the TPT. Documents released under the Freedom of Information Act have confirmed that administrative staff working at the "independent" tribunal, including the tribunal manager, are Manchester City Council employees – in apparent contravention of European Human Rights legislation.

Mr Dickinson, who could lose his home and business if his legal action fails, says the new evidence is vital: "Article 6(i) of the European Convention on Human Rights allows me to have my case heard before an independent tribunal."How on earth can a body be perceived to be independent when its staff are all employed by the council and the people who are charging the fine are paying the people who adjudicate it?"

He said: "It was a nightmare getting the information out of them – it took more than 70 requests."They have finally admitted that the head of the administrative staff is employed and paid for by Manchester Council."
The adjudicators are appointed by them and sanctioned by the Lord Chancellor. However they are employed and paid by the council."The judicial system states quite categorically that in order for it to be totally independent it must have no connection however small, either monetary or personal, with one party or the other."

He said: "I am doing this because the council tried to rip me off for five parking tickets. Leader of Hull Council Carl Minns said on Politics North, on BBC1: "What's a splash of yellow paint?" It made my blood boil because it shows total contempt that the council have for the people and businesses of Hull – they use us as cash cows."

The tickets were issued under the Decriminalised Parking Enforcement scheme, which allowed councils to take over parking enforcement and keep the money raised from fines. The Traffic Penalty Tribunal is the final stage of appeal for motorists against a penalty issued by a council in England and Wales, outside London.

However it is totally reliant on income from parking tickets – 60p on each ticket issued. Manchester Council is the lead authority, "the headquarters" for parking enforcement for the whole country outside London.

Mr Dickinson is being supported by Neil Herron, campaign director for the pressure group Metric Martyrs and the Motorists' Legal Challenge Fund.

Mr Herron said: "We are not opposed to proper fair parking enforcement but what we have now is a stealth tax which is used by councils to fill holes in their budget and the motoring public has become a victim."

Mr Dickinson challenged the tickets at TPT, formerly the National Parking Adjudication Service, but had his case rejected twice. As a result he took the case to the High Court. Mr Justice Ouseley allowed an adjournment to provide time to compile evidence against the national Deregulated Parking Enforcement scheme and the TPT.

Last December leave was granted for a full review which is expected to be heard towards the end of the year.

Manchester Council said it would be inappropriate to comment.

The battle lines are being drawn ...

2009-08-31T19:07:00.003+01:00

... and councils are fully aware that they have been 'unjustly enriched' from unlawful restrictions on the highway. If only they had followed the law themselves they would not be in the situation where it is likely that £hundreds of millions is going to have to be refunded.
However, the fact that council officers KNEW the restrictions were unlawful is likely to lead to claims for damages and costs in addition to refunds ... and a queue at the jobcentre for highways engineers and parking managers who decided that their council was above the law.

'Council should repay victims of parking bay'
Aug 27 2009
By Michael Russell

AN ANGRY motorist says the council has effectively admitted it was wrong by repainting incorrect parking bay markings and should repay those caught in them before the change.
The town hall admitted there was a technical problem with the white lines in August last year which Nazma Begum says led to it pulling out of an appeal hearing over her ticket.

She said the lines at either ends of many stretches of residents' bays, which are not marked out individually, did not follow regulations set put by the Department for Transport as a double line rather than a single one is painted at each end.

At the time the council said it would be too costly to change them and the changes would reduce parking capacity - but they have since painted over the mistake.

Miss Begum, a Thames Valley University student, said: "They don't care about mitigating circumstances, we have to follow the regulations to the letter so they should too."

The 22-year-old was given a ticket last year after she mistook a residents' bay for a pay and display space in Warwick Road, Ealing.

A visit to the website www.ticketfighter.co.uk enlightened her to the council's mistake and armed with the new information she says she forced the council to back down.
She then submitted a freedom of information request and discovered 27 people had paid tickets after parking in the same bay from August 8 2008 and January 25 while the markings were still incorrect.
And that the council had received more than £4.3m in fines from motorists parking in residents' bays in the past five years.

Miss Begum, of Brent, added: "The council are greedy, they just want to take money off you, they don't care who you are. Are they going to repay motorists who parked in wrongly-marked bays and if there was no problem with them then why have they changed them?"

The owner of the ticketfighter website added that in recent months a number of motorists had won appeals against other councils on the grounds bays were incorrectly marked.

An Ealing Council spokeswoman said: "The bays have always been clearly marked and enforced. As part of a rolling road markings programme our contractor repaints worn away lines. It has been removing some markings in order to maintain a consistent approach with other parking bays across the borough.
"This has been done as part of the ongoing programme over recent months and at no additional cost to the council."

Class actions. Why are we waiting?

2009-08-31T11:25:00.003+01:00

... simply to get all the ducks in a row ;-)

The Times

August 27, 2009
Class actions: why are we waiting?
Neil Rose

When is a class action not a class action? When it’s a collective redress scheme or a representative action or basically anything that does not sound like loony American litigation.
Whatever you call it, however, the idea of bringing a case on behalf of a group of consumers who have to opt out of the action — rather than opt in, as now — is slowly gaining ground. But with the business community united in opposition, slow is the operative word.

Last month the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) accepted that “there may be circumstances where cases could be brought more efficiently on a collective basis”, but then promptly rejected the idea of introducing a generic procedure applicable to all cases.

Responding to recommendations from the Civil Justice Council (CJC), the MoJ said that each government department should assess whether there is evidence of need for a collective redress procedure sector by sector, with the help of a policy framework that the MoJ is developing. If so, the department will decide how it will work.

“It may be the Government’s way of kicking the CJC proposal into the long grass,” says John Meltzer, head of the product liability network at Lovells, the City firm. “Unless the ministry is really prepared to drive the process of reform, I doubt other departments are going to have the appetite to do it.”

The council wants only to add opt-out actions to the options for bringing group claims — not replace them — but it is a sign of the controversy they provoke that it counts as progress that the ministry did not shelve the idea entirely.

Robert Musgrove, chief executive of the council, is pleased that the Ministry of Justice accepted most of its recommendations, saying they “should herald considerable improvements in access to justice”. These were based on research that found “overwhelming evidence” that the system is preventing meritorious consumer claims from being pursued. Getting the balance right between developing more effective procedures for people to bring meritorious claims, protecting defendants from non-meritorious claims and ensuring that court proceedings are only ever utilised where there are no more efficient or timely routes to redress, has been challenging,” he says.

Ingrid Gubbay, a co-author of the CJC’s report and consultant in the London office of Hausfeld, the US class action firm, is less diplomatic. She suggests that the Government is worried in part about finding itself on the receiving end of class actions even though, in reality, such cases would be tough to bring, as the Equitable Life action proves.

“The sector-by-sector approach is a way of slowing down almost to a halt any possibility of bringing in any effective procedure,” she says, “and does raise a credibility question as to how far the response may be selfserving.”

With litigation seen as the last resort, the ministry highlighted regulatory action as potentially “a more cost-effective way of dealing with cases involving a large number of small claims”, which Meltzer says is in keeping with the European approach.

It also sounds like a veiled reference to the case Which? brought against JJB Sports over football shirt pricefixing, in which consumers who bought offending strips could claim £20. But Gubbay, who previously worked at Which? and launched the action, says that requires consumer groups, charities and trade unions — as well as regulators — to make private enforcement a priority. Few seem willing or able to do this.

The council has tried to make its proposals look as little like US class actions as possible, despite research indicating that the reality is not as loony as the myths anyway, in an effort to reassure the business community that they would not lead to a mass of speculative claims. To the extent that opt-out is a feature of US class actions, then such cases are US-style, but equally they are Canadian and Australian-style. What makes US class actions scary are contingency fees, punitive damages and no loser-pays rule; and we are a long way from that.

It is also often forgotten that class actions help defendants, too, by consolidating all claimants into one action and offering finality.

Not everyone thinks they will now rest quietly in the long grass. The European Commission is looking closely at collective redress, while an as-yet unpublished report commissioned by the Government Equalities Office calls for opt-out actions to be tried out in employment tribunals to deal with the thousands of group discrimination and equal pay cases clogging up the system.
Tim Strong, a partner at Barlow Lyde & Gilbert, the City firm, believes the present climate provides fertile ground for government departments to get on and examine whether they need such actions. “Lord Justice Jackson’s costs review has focused attention on the high cost of litigation in the UK and issues of access to justice,” he says. “In addition, there are now large classes of claimants with recession-based claims against their financial advisers and others. The issue of collective actions may therefore be near the top of many government departments’ ‘to do’ lists come early 2010.”

Days are numbered for lawless, uncontrolled local authority run civil parking enforcement

2009-08-31T11:07:00.002+01:00

There is not a single issue which commands so much press coverage as parking enforcement. Lawless, out of control and unregulated for many years the time has come to set up an independent watchdog to censure local authorities who believe that they are above the law and who think that the motorist is fair game for what is now seen as nothing more than a stealth tax.

As for charging for hospital car parks ... free in Scotland, free in Wales and hospital trusts in England filling their boots with a tax on the sick, the elderly and front line health workers. What has this country come to?

Local authorities breach parking guidelines
Consumer group Which? says motorists are being penalised unfairly when issued with parking tickets
Ali Hussain
The Times
18th August 2009

Six local authority councils have been accused by the consumer watchdog Which? of breaching Government guidelines by setting targets for the number of parking tickets issued by their wardens.

A freedom of information request by Which? found that the councils - Basildon, Richmond upon Thames, Lewisham, Bromley, Shropshire and Carmarthenshire - all “expect a certain number of tickets to be issued.”

Setting such targets is against Department for Transport guidelines.
The Department for Transport said: “Our guidance to local authorities is clear that they should not set targets for the number of penalty charge notices they issue. Parking charges are a tool to manage demand for road use and they should not be used as a revenue raising measure.
"Local authorities are expected to comply with our guidance and are accountable to their electorates, auditor and the courts. Any concerns about the operations of local councils should be raised with the council leader or local ombudsman.”

Which? also found that some healthcare trusts in England, such as Norfolk & Norwich University Hospital and Southampton University Hospitals, are making more than a million pounds a year from hospital car park fees. Others are making losses and subsidising their car parks from money intended for healthcare, according to Which.
Martyn Hocking, editor of Which? magazine, said: "There are good reasons why hospitals charge for their car parks but if they're making large profits, there's clearly scope to reduce the amount they charge."

Which? added that many parking signs in urban areas are obscured or have defunct phone numbers and that the parking fines charged, of between £100-£360, may also be too high.
Hocking said: "Of course it's fair to stop people parking on your land or to charge them a fee for the privilege, but it should be absolutely clear where people can and can't park, and what the charges and penalties are. It's not right that huge sums can be extracted from unsuspecting drivers, or that incentive schemes can be used to discourage people from appealing fines.”

Patrick Troy, chief executive of the British Parking Association, said: “With nearly 30 million cars on the road in the UK, parking management and enforcement is essential for daily life, namely for reducing congestion, improving road safety, encouraging sustainable methods of transport and stimulating local economies. There is always room for improvement and we are committed to working with our members, partners and government to improve legislation, rid the industry of bad practices and set new ground rules, to make life easier for all.”

What next ... viewers of 'Murder she wrote' and Taggart given fingerprint kits?

2009-08-31T08:22:00.006+01:00

Why not just allow the public to try and track down rapists, burglars, paedophiles and muggers and the Police can sit in their offices drafting strongly worded letters!

Because once you start down the route of allowing vigilanteism then this is what you'll end up with ...

and don't forget the home of a paediatrician being attacked by 'vigilantes' mistakenly thinking she was a 'paedo.'

Croydon Road Watch speed 'vigilantes' plan slammed
Wednesday 26th August 2009
Croydon Guardian
By Kirsty Whalley »

Campaigners have slammed a scheme where members of the public acting like roadside “vigilantes” in a volunteer scheme to cut speeding.
Under the Road Watch scheme, volunteers take to the streets at speeding hot spots and record details of drivers travelling too fast.

These are then passed to the police who send speeding drivers a warning letter.
Drivers who continue to speed receive stronger letters and can get an £80 fine and three penalty points on their licence.
But campaigners said policing crime should be left to police officers.

Neil Herron, of the London Motorist Action Group (LMAG), said: “We cannot have Joe Public in any shape or form enforcing traffic law. We must have the police enforcing criminal offences on the highway.
“Even with the best intentions in the world, the system is open to abuse. When you start to blur the lines between the public and the police, you get into dangerous territory where you have vigilante members of the public having to prove people are guilty of speeding.”

Roger Capham, Kenley Road Watch volunteer co-ordinator, said the scheme had been successful and he was often thanked by neighbours.
He said they were visible on the roadside in their bright yellow jackets and worked in pairs, with one person clocking the speeds and another taking down the car’s details.
They do not have the power to stop anyone.
He said they used to have a PCSO with them but now go out on their own.
He said: “It’s good for the community to take part and we feel we’re doing our part.
“I trust the roads more now. We’re having to stop less and less people – they never know where we’re going to pop up.”

He said they were looking for more volunteers to restore their numbers to seven people.
The scheme has been piloted in Kenley and Sanderstead since 2007 and has been rolled out across the borough.

Croydon Council has spent £25,000 on equipment for the scheme so far. They spent £10,000 in 2007 and £15,000 in late 2008. The initial £10,000 amounted to a quarter of Croydon’s road safety budget.
The police do not have any official figures about how many letters or fines have been issued to speeding drivers.

Sergeant Paul Potter, of the Kenley safer neighbourhood team, said they sent out an average of four letters after each hour-long session.
He said: “The presence of volunteers carrying out speed checks under the Road Watch scheme appears to be having a detrimental effect on speeding vehicles.
“We are committed to supporting this initiative, which hand in hand with other police enforcement measures, is an effective way of identifying persistent speeders and dealing with them by way of deterrent or enforcement.”

• What do you think? Let us know by email here, phone the newsdesk on 020 8330 9555 or leave a comment below.

Another step closer to the Royal Pardon...

2009-08-31T08:00:00.002+01:00

Actor Edward Fox, right, with Neil Herron, friend of Metric Martyr Steve Thoburn, and the cookbook in which Fox dedicates a recipe to his hero Steve.

Actor Edward Fox signs to help heroes
Sunderland Echo
27 August 2009
By James Johnston

Veteran actor Edward Fox has signed up for a Wearside charity drive in aid of injured soldiers.
The star of films including The Day of the Jackal, A Bridge Too Far and Gandhi, recently penned a moving tribute to Metric Martyr Steve Thoburn in the Food for Heroes cookbook, which will benefit the charity Help for Heroes. Now the British actor has signed eight copies of the book, which will be auctioned off by the Echo to raise further funds for the organisation. Neil Herron, a close friend of the late Mr Thoburn, had the books signed on a visit to London earlier this month.

He said: "I personally hope that people from Sunderland will help support the Help for Heroes charity which is a noble and worthy cause."We must never forget the sacrifices that our troops make on our behalf and we must as a nation give the very best of care and respect for those who have been injured. The charity deserves our support."

Mr Thoburn, who died suddenly in 2004, aged 39, hit the headlines in 2001 after being prosecuted for selling fruit and vegetables by the pound. His appeals against conviction were taken to the House of Lords and European Court of Human Rights.In 2007, the European Commission published proposals that would permit the use of price and quantity marking using imperial measurements alongside, but not instead of, metric units. A hundred people were asked to nominate their hero and the dish they would cook for them, and the book is the result.Fox's recipe is Panga (a type of fish) Tandoori.

Mr Thoburn became famous after his scales were seized from his market stall by trading standards officers who caught him selling bananas by the pound. It triggered a legal battle in which he was joined by four other traders from across the country to fight European regulations requiring food traders to sell produce in metric measurements. Their legal battle was funded through the Metric Martyr Defence Fund, raised from donations by the public. Supporters continue to push for a posthumous Royal Pardon for Mr Thoburn and the four other martyrs. Another signed copy of the Food for Heroes cookbook has been presented to Mr Thoburn's widow, Leigh, and his family.

Mr Herron added: "Leigh says that she is really proud to have Steve named as Edward Fox's hero in the book and it is a fantastic legacy for her and the children to have a copy personally signed by Edward Fox."

Anyone who wishes to make a bid for a signed copy of the book can email james.johnston@northeast-press.co.uk

Food for Heroes is available at all good stockists, price £14.99.

Alternatively you can visit these websites:
www.accentpress.co.uk
www.foodforheroes.mnmwebdesign.co.uk
www.helpforheroes.org.uk

Where will the money come from to refund motorists?

2009-08-23T14:40:00.003+01:00

Once the millions of pennies start to drop that unlawfully derived income contained in council's accounts MUST be refunded the councils' spin machines will set to work saying that if they are forced to refund then that will mean cuts in services.

Perhaps we should have a look and see where that money could really come from and let the ones whose failings have caused the problem have their fat cat salaries slashed.

Let us hope, in the first instance, that no bonuses are paid to those responsible for the credit card surcharge fiasco.

Peeping through the audit window – it’s a sight for sore council taxpayers
Camden New Journal
News - EXCLUSIVE By RICHARD OSLEY
Published: 20 August 2009

A recession, but top 25 bosses still pocketing fat bonuses
• Nearly £100k in payouts for errors
• Thousands shelled out on their own parking fines

SECRET details of spending at the Town Hall on everything from parking fines incurred by the council’s own staff to meaty bonuses for high-earners have been uncovered by a New Journal investigation.

Using the little known powers of the 1998 Audit Commission Act, we have accessed a series of previously confidential documents which show how the council has handled its finances during 12 months of economic turbulence. They show that despite the tough times, the council has been able to find money to reward its top earners with incentives and to pay out for scores of parking fines slapped on their own vehicles.

Documents seen by the New Journal show:

* Highly-paid senior staff have together been treated to more than £170,000 in incentives.

* Camden has spent nearly £2million on severance payments in order to sack people.

* Council staff racked up £15,000 in parking tickets while on work business – effectively £300 a week spent.

*£80,000 was spent on hiring an interim manager who ran the rule over changes in the parking department for little more than six months.

* Compensation pay-outs to members of the public who have suffered as a result of council errors total nearly £100,000.

The details of financial matters are normally locked away in the accounts department but once a year Camden Council is obliged to let people inspect the paperwork during a month-long window.

This requirement under the Audit Commission Act is rarely used by the public, however, and even many of the council’s own officers are unaware of how the “audit window” works.

Other requests for information are still being prepared for the New Journal but the initial figures have already stoked a political debate – especially over the thorny issue of staff bonuses.

The Town Hall was yesterday (Wednesday) defending the use of bonuses to staff, some of whom already take home six figure salaries, insisting that the policy has been in place for several years.
The top earner is Moira Gibb, the chief executive. Critics say that the bonus system, set up during healthier economic times, is hardly appropriate in the current climate. Officials were yesterday (Wednesday) insisting that bonuses to public servants were fair in the context of running a large London authority. Nevertheless, the sharp contrast of pay and income at the Town Hall is open for all to see.

Chief officers earning anything up to £199,000 before any bonus is paid can on any day share a lift at the council’s headquarters with a contract cleaner whose pay does not even hit £7.45 an hour, that’s the Mayor of London’s suggested minimum pay for people working in London.

Labour councillor Theo Blackwell said: “The council now seem utterly confused on pay policy. They accept that higher wages are useful to attract the best, if they are referring to the leader and the chief executive, but in the same breath claim no link between pay and high performance for the lowest paid.”

Cllr Blackwell is now working on an investigation into poorly-paid council staff. He has challenged the leaders of the administration to set a minimum wage for contractors, but was told at one scrutiny panel meeting that policy would not be “made on the hoof”.

Moira Gibb’s predecessor Steve Bundred, now head of the Audit Commission, wrote an article for The Observer last month in which he suggested that council workers should accept pay freezes. A gloomy outlook of hard times ahead has been hammered home to staff with regular reminders that budgets may be cut in the near future. Politicians from all sides have warned of “difficult decisions” for whichever party wins overall power at next year’s boroughwide elections – but yesterday (Wednesday) there was no sign of the bonus system being dismantled.

Liberal Democrat councillor Ralph Scott – the council’s treasurer – said he had not been briefed on who got what under the bonus scheme. “Clearly in the tough economics, everything needs more scrutiny and we need to be careful with resources but this is one of the ways we reward staff for good performance,” he said.

Cllr Scott said it was not a case of paying out bonuses while youth projects and other worthy causes were starved of funding. He added: “I don’t have the details in front of me but obviously it is done on a case by case basis. It is a way of giving encouragement to staff.”

Conservative leader Councillor Andrew Marshall said that the council would have to “keep an eye” on high salaries and bonus payments if the recession worsened.But he added: “These payments are built into the salaries so that there is some performance-related element to what they are paid. I think that’s right. Staff are rewarded for the valuable work they do.”

Bonuses £175k to keep the elite officers sweet

A BONUS system operating at the Town Hall is reserved only for the highest earners and has been retained despite Camden’s diminishing resources in the recession, the figures released to the New Journal show.

The breakdown reveals that £174,760 was paid out on top of basic pay last year with many of the performance-related incentives handed out to staff already on six figure salaries. Among those who qualify for the extra money are chief executive Moira Gibb, whose salary is roughly £185,000 a year, and department directors who can take home £150,000 under the council’s pay scheme.

In total, 25 bonus payments were made to staff in the last year. The New Journal understands that as part of the bonus system senior management sits down and agrees a series of targets that they need to hit in order to qualify for the extra money. A council spokeswoman said yesterday (Wednesday) that those who received the bonuses had large responsibilities and therefore deserved to be given extra money.“Camden demands a lot of its chief officers and we need to attract and retain the best talent in local government,” she said. “Having an element of pay at risk – for example, if a chief officer under performs no bonus would be paid – helps to ensure we have high performance.”

There are no plans to halt the bonus scheme despite the current downturn.The spokeswoman added: “The average bonus is normally around 5 per cent of salary to ensure the scheme is measured and appropriate.”

Credit Cards - Motorists could recoup driving fines from credit card payments

2009-08-22T17:36:00.002+01:00

Credit Cards - Motorists could recoup driving fines from credit card payments - 17/08/2009

It has been revealed that drivers could gain back the money paid in fines on their credit cards.

Over the years, motorists have paid millions of pounds in parking fines, but they now could be in line for refunds, after a test case ruled that town hall surcharges imposed for paying by credit cards are unlawful.

An estimated eight million drivers, around one in four of the total number on the roads, receive a parker ticking each year, paying a predicted £1 billion in fines.

Many choose to pay off this fine with a credit card, either by paying online or via a telephone service. At least 12 councils impose a surcharge on this payment method.

However, this practice was challenged by one driver, who criticised the 1.3% surcharge in Camden. As a result, the adjudicator said councils could not demand money in addition to the fine for the offence itself.

Neil Herron of the motorists’ campaign group Parking Appeals, said he was ready to launch a class action to force town halls to reimburse motorists if they fail to do so voluntarily.

He said: "Yet again we have exposed councils acting unlawfully in their pursuit of the motorist. Councils have a duty to act within the law at all times and yet again their greed, by trying to extract every last drop of cash from the motorist, is going to come back and bite them.
"In this instance they can have no excuses. The legislation is explicitly clear. The process of refunding motorists the full amount could not be simpler."

An AA spokesman said: "These credit card charges have been outrageous. Councils have got their fingers burned and have been caught acting illegally. It shows the extent to which councils have been acting as a law unto themselves."

Credit-card surcharges for parking tickets to be reimbursed

2009-08-22T16:27:00.004+01:00

Town halls across Britain are bracing themselves for an inundation of claims by motorists demanding reimbursement of money they were wrongfully charged for paying for a parking ticket by credit card.
[ClickPress, Thu Aug 13 2009]

In a test case in which a London motorist challenged the 1.3% surcharge in Camden, his claim was upheld by the adjudicator (the Parking and Traffic Appeals Service), which said that such surcharges are unlawful and councils could not demand money in addition to the fine for the offence itself.

This ruling applies to all fines set by local authorities, including those outside London which have been given the right to monitor parking offences and keep the fines. This ruling opens the way for millions of drivers who have used a credit card for paying a parking fine to claim reimbursement.

If councils choose not to issue refunds to all those entitled to one, they may face a class action launched by the motorists’ campaign group Parking Appeals.

Neil Herron, a spokesman for the group, said that the surcharges were simply a case of greed on the part of councils “trying to extract every last drop of cash from the motorist”.

A spokesman for the AA also attacked the credit card charges, calling them “outrageous” and a demonstration of “the extent to which councils have been acting as a law unto themselves”.

Peter Roberts, chief executive of the Drivers’ Alliance, welcomed the ruling on the test case. “Councils are taking motorists for a ride with countless stealth taxes and petty fines,” he said, and called on “every council [to] return the illegal charges without delay”.

A government spokesman from the Department of Transport added his voice too to the chorus of critics, saying that “Parking charges should be used to manage demand and not to raise revenue.”

What makes the charges all the more indefensible is that paying parking fines by debit and credit cards is actually much cheaper and more secure for local authorities than processing cheques or dealing with cash brought into a parking shop.

Following the ruling, Camden Council has scrapped its policy of levying an extra fee for processing payments made by credit card, a “goodwill move” which it is applying across all council services, not just on parking fines. It said that processing bills through credit cards was costing the authority some £250,000 a year, costs which the charge was intended to cover.

For press enquiries, please contact Peter Cooper on 020 7183 7247
Email: info@247parking.com Web: http://www.247parking.com/

News provided by 24 7 Parking Ltd, a leading marketing services provider to the car parking industry in the UK, and a leading de facto marketplace for buyers and sellers, or lessees and lessors, of car parking spaces. 24 7 Parking carries out daily surveys of the national media to provide up-to-date news and commentary on UK transport.

One rule for them ...

2009-08-22T16:03:00.004+01:00

Those cynics will suggest that this is simply another revenue raiser to fill the council's coffers. I think that there will be many wishing to break this rule!
Just watch as the complaints flood in once the over zealous wardens are let loose. Give them an inch ...

Fines for parking 50cm from kerb
The News
Published Date: 15 August 2009
Portsmouth
TARGET Traffic wardens will ticket cars that are parked more than 50cm from kerb

MOTORISTS who park more than 50cm away from the kerb are set to face a £70 fine.
Traffic wardens will take to the streets armed with tape measures to make sure cars aren't sticking out too far. The move by Portsmouth City Council is part of a drive to stop people parking obstructively. But critics say penalising drivers who exceed the 50cm limit – which equates to just under 20 inches – is a step too far.

Deputy Tory leader Councillor Alistair Thomp- son said: 'It is utterly ludicrous to expect our traffic wardens to go around measuring how close people are parked to the kerb.'What about people with wheelchairs or zimmer frames that need a space to get out of the car?' And what next? Will we be fining people who can't park straight?'

The government has given councils the power to enforce the new parking restrictions in a bid to help traffic flow more freely. In the past, parking wardens have had no authority to punish people for obstructing the highway, and had to rely on police. Portsmouth City Council will be implementing the new rules from next month, unless councillors object to the plans.People that double park or park in front of dropped kerbs will also face fines.

Councillor Luke Stubbs, Conservative spokesman for traffic and transportation, said: 'Few people are aware of the 50cm rule, so it's somewhat unfair to issue tickets to those parked only marginally too far out – a warning note would be more just. Other councils are more flexible, automatically fining only those parked a full metre away from the kerb. Perhaps we should do that too.'

Councillor Lynne Stagg, Lib Dem cabinet member for traffic and transport, said: 'The roads in Portsmouth are very narrow, so people that park too far out in the road do make it very difficult for other cars to get past. There is a law which allows us to do this.'

The city council says traffic wardens won't be measuring every parked car. But if they see a car inconsiderately parked they will measure the distance and issue a ticket if the 50cm rule is broken.But Portsmouth driving instructor Dermot Ryan, from iGO Driver Tuition, said most drivers should be able to park well within 50cm of the kerb.