parker
Alan Parker vs Transport for London
Hearing before the Parking and Traffic Appeals Service (PATAS) 2pm 17th May 2006
Penalty Charge Notice: TL54626983
CASE NUMBER: 9060012941
Evidence:
Correspondence: Transport for London / PATAS with Alan Parker
Opening Statement by Alan Parker
Opening Statement by Neil Herron
The Case
Registered Keeper / Driver and DVLA Evidence
Questions to Colin Moran
Colin Moran’s Evidence
Professional Competence of PATAS
Questions for Simon Aldridge, London Motorists Action Group
Simon Aldridge, London Motorists Action Group, Response
Professional Competence of PATAS (continued): Barrie Segal
Barrie Segal of AppealNow.com Response
Independence and Impartiality of the Adjudicator and PATAS
Independence and Impartiality: evidence Against
Declaration and Bill of Rights 1689 Submission
Summary
Numbered Evidence 1 through
Statement by Alan Parker
My name is Alan Parker of 7 St. Giles’ Court, Rosehill, Willenhall, WV13 2LX
I am the registered keeper of the vehicle, registration number V846 AJO, which I entrusted in good faith to someone else, who chose to drive the vehicle into Central London without my knowledge or express consent.
I am not an expert on the London Congestion Charge, as I live in the Midlands.
I am shocked that as a law abiding citizen that the law allows me to be fined for actions committed by another, and that I have to make a round trip of over two hundred miles to present my case. I consider this unfair and unacceptable that the further someone lives from London the greater the cost of justice.
I am just a layman but I have done some research into the law and I am aware that the 1991 Road Traffic Act does not pursue the offender but directs responsibility to the owner.
Therefore I will present evidence today to the tribunal, assisted in my case by Neil Herron, that this goes against the grain of natural justice and is entirely unsatisfactory and must be challenged.
I intend to introduce evidence that the DVLA never informed me that this would be the case.
I have also made submissions to Transport for London that they have no right to demand money from me. As the Declaration of Rights 1689 states, “that all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of particular persons before conviction are illegal and void,” then they have no lawful authority to demand such monies.
Further to this, I also intend to introduce evidence today, further to my Plea in Law submitted on the 4th March 2006 regarding the lack of independence and impartiality of this tribunal.
It is also my intention to call witness to introduce evidence questioning the professional competence of both PATAS and its adjudicators.
I wish, and intend to make a full and substantive submission before you today regarding the allegation that I am liable for the Penalty Charge (TL54626983) issued by Transport for London.
I wish to call on Neil Herron to help present that submission.
Opening Statement by Neil Herron
May I open by saying that I intend to keep matters as brief as possible, but as there is a substantial amount of evidence to submit to the tribunal
We are aware that the legislation states that the owner is liable for contraventions committed by the driver.
Indeed, the matter was so complex that it was argued all the way to to the Court of Appeal in the case of Regina vs The Parking Adjudicator (Respondent) ex parte The Mayor and Burgesses of the London Borough of Wandsworth (Appellant) where the decision of the adjudicator and the High Court was overturned in the Court of Appeal.
1. http://www.parkingandtrafficappeals.gov.uk/user_documents/francis-v-wandsworth.pdf
Steve Norris MP (Epping Forest)
2.http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199697/cmhansrd/vo961127/debtext/61127-11.htm#61127-11_head0
described the case in the Commons on 27th November 1996 and stated “I fear that a recent case in the Court of Appeal may mean that the benefits of the 1991 Road Traffic Act will be substantially undermined.”
He goes on to describe the case, where the keeper of a vehicle put a car in to a garage for repair and unbeknown to them, incurred a penalty charge.
This was indeed a complicated position and it seems unthinkable that Parliament could consider drafting legislation which makes the owner of a vehicle liable for someone else’s actions, but that is what the court upheld.
Indeed, Mr. Norris goes on to say, “Surely Parliament intended that the people who keep and use the vehicle, not the registered owner, should be liable for parking tickets.”
However, The Minister for Transport gives the game away later. He states, “If owner liability had not been introduced in the Act, the company (referring to company owned vehicles) would have the option of writing back to the authority that issued the PCN, passing the buck. That would seriously undermine the efficiency of the enforcement system. It would require the serving of a further, duplicate, notice, and additional administrative time and cost would be involved.”
He goes on “that would not be in the interests of the majority of drivers …and I do not think that was what Parliament intended when it considered how best to marry protection of the interests of the individual with administrative efficiency.”
So, there we have the real reason. Not about fairness or justice, but ‘administrative efficiency.’ This ‘administrative efficiency’is the real reason that fairness and justice has gone out of the window and DPE and the Congestion Charge PCNs are nothing more than a cash cow and an affront to proper justice.
In all other matters, the owner / keeper has the ability to name the driver. In those instances it is fair and just.
The Wandsworth decision was 10 years ago and as the Congestion Charge has been introduced since, and Decriminalised Parking Enforcement expanded to over 170 local authorities the potential financial liabilities facing people nominating themselves to be the registered keeper has expanded exponentially.
Add to this other civil penalties such as littering and private parking enforcement then the burden on the registered keeper could potentially be extremely punitive…and all without recourse to a proper court of law.
So, we wish to challenge the premise that Parliament actually knew what it was doing, that the Department for Transport was fully aware of the potential legal implications and the DVLA was aware of its legal responsibilities.
Further to this, we will introduce substantial evidence of the following:
(i) That the DVLA has failed to inform the keeper of this potential financial liability.
(ii) That this tribunal is neither independent nor impartial and falls on the European Convention on Human Rights Article 6(1) point.
(iii) That this tribunal has been proven on numerous occasions to be professionally incompetent.
(iv) That under the Bill of Rights 1689 fines can only be levied by a court of law, not Transport for London.
The Case
It is my case to argue whether a reasonable person would be expected to know about the London Congestion Charge, especially if he was not living in London, had never been, nor intended to visit London, and had never had any connection with the Congestion Charge.
Alan Parker loaned the vehicle to Robin Decrittenden.
As the registered keeper Alan Parker would not have seen any signs.
We are at a loss as to how the registered keeper can challenge or use mitigation, which would be Mr. Decrittenden’s defence if he were present. As there is no requirement, nor indeed power to force the attendance of Mr. Decrittenden, Alan Parker has been placed in the impossible position of challenging something, which is alleged to have taken place over a hundred miles away.
This premise of responsibility residing with the keeper goes against the grain of natural justice… To be responsible for an offence with financial penalties for an offence committed by another.
One really has to wonder what Parliament was thinking. Come to think of it, one is beginning to think that more and more as it appears that our legislators do not have the ability to run a whelk stall, never mind a modern twenty first century democracy.
Alan Parker does not have the ability to call Mr. Decrittenden as a witness. Should he choose not to attend as the Parking and Traffic Appeals Service has not powers to force the attendance.
I must point out that Mr. Parker and Mr. Decrittenden have fallen out over this issue and severed a friendship going back many years. He has quite simply refused to pay.
He has however, provided evidence that he was the driver of the vehicle and present in London on that day.
I must also point out the unfairness of Mr. Parker having to make a round trip of over two hundred miles to defend against these allegations and establish his innocence. This is offensive and financially restrictive especially to a person of limited means. He has not been given, nor offered an opportunity to have a hearing at a more convenient venue.
This would also be the case should he be the registered keeper of a vehicle in Land’s End or John O’Groats.
Under the principle of equality of arms this is grossly unfair especially as the hearing venue is inside the Congestion Charge Zone so another charge is incurred simply by attending any hearing.
Alan Parker’s right to a fair trial bestowed by Article 6(1) of the ECHR is key, because this includes the right to equality of arms.
This right has been explicitly recognised in the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights as an element of the Article 6 rights accorded to parties in both civil and criminal proceedings. Each side must have a “reasonable opportunity of presenting his case to the court under conditions which did not place him or her at a substantial disadvantage vis-à-vis their opponent.”
See De Haes and Gijsels v Belgium (1998) 25 EHRR 1.
Also, as Lord Justice Laws (who we have come to be rather fond of) restated in R v Lord Chancellor, ex p Witham (1998) QB 575:
“ The right to a fair trial … of necessity imports the necessity of the right of access to the court.”3.
The whole of the system of Congestion Charge adjudication appeals and those of Decriminalised Parking Penalties can be challenged by anyone outside London on this point alone…but we don’t want to rest there.
Registered Keeper / Driver and DVLA Evidence
Firstly I wish now to introduce evidence that, by Alan Parker nominating himself to be the registered keeper of a vehicle, he was not made aware by the DVLA that he would be liable for contraventions committed by a third party.
Upon checking the DVLA V5 document and the explanatory notes, nowhere does it state that I would be responsible for contraventions committed by third parties simply by ‘owning’ or nominating oneself to be the registered keeper of a vehicle.
I would like to call Mr. Colin Moran who has over 35 years of experience in the industry and who also has assisted the DVLAs Policy Unit to give evidence on this particular point.
Before I do so, I would like to submit that the wording of the Transport for London Penalty Charge Notice 4. is misleading and potentially prejudicial.
It states, “The Penalty Charge Notice has been sent to you as the registered keeper/hirer…”
It goes on, “Important: Liability for this Penalty Charge lies with you the registered keeper…”
But then it allows in Section 4 the Grounds for Appeal ‘I was not the person liable at the time of the contravention.’
Alan Parker duly ticked the box.
He then ticked the box 1 under ‘Representations Against the Penalty Charge’
1. ‘I was not the keeper at the time of the contravention.’
As Mr. Decrittenden, in Alan Parker’s eyes, was ‘the keeper’ and was alleged to have committed the contravention it then Mr. Parker had been misled into thinking that he had filled in the form correctly.
To be correct the Represenation Against the Notice should have stated,
1. ‘I was not the registered keeper at the time of the contravention.’
Then there could have been no potential for prejudice.
I would now like to call Colin Moran.
Questions to Colin Moran
1. Mr. Moran, can you please explain the wording on the V5 document and accompanying notes 5. regarding the registered keeper and owner?
2. Does it state anywhere on the V5 Document or in the accompanying notes that the registered keeper may be liable for contraventions committed by third parties, such as incurring fines under the Congestion Charge or under Decriminalised Parking Enforcement?
3. Are the Department for Transport and the DVLA aware of this anomalous and potentially prejudicial situation and the legal implications for the DVLA should someone suffering distress and loss at the hands of bailiffs take legal action against the agency for failing to inform them of the potential liabilities arising from nominating to become a registered keeper?
4. Transport for London are now including a ‘Congestion Charge Made Simple’ leaflet in V5 literature. Have you seen it?
5. Does it mention anywhere on the leaflet that it is the registered keeper who is responsible for the Congestion Charge?
6. Could it be assumed that the references as to where it is, how to pay and what to look for gives the impression that it is directed to the driver, rather than the registered keeper?
7. Could you give us some examples how a vehicle registered to a keeper may have multiple users?
Colin Moran’s Evidence:
1. The V5 or V5C Registration Document as it is also known makes it clear that the registered keeper is not necessarily the owner , which could lead to a potential prejudice for either party.
Although there is a rebuttal presumption in law that the keeper is the owner it is not clarified in any Transport for London’S communications
2. The V5 Document does not say that you may be liable for contraventions committed by a third party. DVLA’s failure to inform any potential keeper that he may be liable for contraventions committed by other persons.
It does say, “ the registered keeper is not necessarily the legal owner of the vehicle. The registered keeper shall remain liable for the vehicle until the DVLA is informed of any changes.”
The liability includes continuous taxation and informing DVLA under SORN rules and any changes which would include disposing of the vehicle, scrapping of the vehicle or parting with the vehicle to the motor trade and responding to assist enforcement agencies and others regarding the person in charge of the vehicle whilst on the road or indeed its use by the registered keeper or others.
It does not clarify this liability may include fines generated by other parties using the vehicle.
In the majority of circumstances matters relating to the vehicles use the responsibility resides with the registered keeper to provide the enforcement agencies with the name of the driver. But, the 1991 Road Traffic Act and other subsequent remote enforcement legislation places the liability for contraventions (decriminalised enforcement) committed solely with the registered keeper:
2. The Department for Transport and the DVLA have recently become aware of this legal anomaly and that the V5 Document is not explicit as to the conditions relating to the potential liability for someone nominating to become the registered keeper of a vehicle. Both the DfT and the DVLA are urgently looking into the situation.
3. There has been a DfT Consultation to which I have submitted substantial evidence. The Dft decision to consult is the first in 33 years and has been prompted by issues at hand today and public criticism and concerns regarding the data base being available to an increasing number of unaccountable people.
The V5 Document contains no disclaimer and neither do the accompanying notes which the registered keeper is sent.
4. Yes. I was quite amazed.
5. No. there is no mention at all of the registered keeper, nor that the liability to pay the Congestion Charge lies with the registered keeper.The DfT in conjunction with DVLA and TfL have obviously authorised the issue of this leaflet but have completely missed the opportunity to signal the 1991 RTA and its consequences under Decriminalised Enforcement.
6. It seems clear that the leaflet is directed to the person who would be assumed to be driving the vehicle into the Congestion Charge zone. There is nothing in any of the legislation nor a presumption in law that the driver is the registered keeper or vice versa.
7. Yes
Professional Competence of PATAS
I would now like to raise the issue of the professional competence of both PATAS and its adjudicators.
This relates to matters involving Decriminalised Parking Enforcement and in particular the failure of PATAS and its adjudicators to recognise flaws in evidence presented to them by local authorities.
Whilst not directly related to the Congestion Charge it involves calling into question the competence of PATAS, the supposed independent arbiters tasked with dispensing justice, with regard to its core function, Decriminalised Parking Enforcement appeals
In particular, I would like to draw attention to the matter relating to the most fundamental and primary piece of evidence…the Penalty Charge Notice.
I would like to call two witnesses to highlight these points of evidence.
The first is Mr. Simon Aldridge of the London Motorists Action Group, who brought to the attention of the adjudicator the issue of the City of Westminster’s unlawfully worded PCNs.6.
Questions for Simon Aldridge
1. Simon, can you confirm the date and give details of your experience regarding your PATAS appeal against a Penalty Charge Notice issued by the City of Westminster Council?
2. Are you aware of any other cases involving the unlawful wording of PCNs?
3. What percentage of PATAS workload is taken up by City of Westminster appeals?
4. If a PCN can be successfully appealed on the points raised in your previous answers should a local authority continue to issue/
5. Do you consider it a failing by PATAS adjudicators that they have not picked up on the PCN wording problem?
Simon Aldridge (London Motorists Action Group) Responses
1. My Adjudication case Aldridge V Westminster is the latest in a growing line of Adjudications over the non compliance of the wording of various Councils PCNs.
2. The first example I know of being Moulder V LB Sutton in 1995, followed by
Sutton V LB Camden
Als Bar V LB Wandsworth
More recently we have seen
McArthur V Bury, which led NPAS to send out a circular warning Councils of the National implications (04 2005)
Followed by in London the Councils of Barnet, Tower Hamlets, Lambeth and finally Westminster.
3. Westminster on its own accounts for almost 25% of PATAS workload, and from annual reports on Appeals to PATAS I can see that in a single year since the Bury V McArthur circular PATAS has Adjudicated an estimated 10,000 identically deficient Westminster PCNs alone prior to finding my particular PCN non compliant.
10,000 Adjudications without presumably having properly examined the PCN itself in proper detail.
4. It must be pointed out that a local authority that is aware that its PCNs can be successfully appealed on this point in EVERY instance and continues to issue PCNs it knows to be invalid will most certainly be guilty of vexatious pursuit and its officers guilty of misfeasance.
5. Simon to expand this answer
Simon Aldridge
19 Christchurch Rd, London, N8 9QL
0208 374 2917
lmag@blueyonder.co.uk
Professional Competence of PATAS (continued)
I would now like to call Barrie Segal of AppealNow.com to give evidence. Barrie is no stranger to PATAS appeals and has ample evidence to introduce to the proceedings.
Barrie, in your submission could you indicate and give your examples as to how you believe PATAS to be professionally incompetent?
Barrie Segal of AppealNow.com: Submission
Independence and Impartiality of the Adjudicator and PATAS
I now wish to introduce evidence that PATAS is not independent and that there is a direct financial and beneficial relationship between Transport for London and PATAS and therefore yourself.
Before introducing the evidence I would like to ask you a number of questions:
1. Who was responsible for interview and your subsequent appointment as an adjudicator?
2. Who was responsible for your initial training and who is responsible for keeping you up to date with adjudication decisions and ongoing training?
3. Are you aware that the Transport for London and the London Boroughs via the Association of London Government has a direct funding relationship with the supposed independent PATAS?
4. Who is responsible for your remuneration, salary and pension contributions?
5. Are you dependent on this income?
Article 6 (1) of the European Convention on Human Rights states:
ARTICLE 6
RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL
1. In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. Judgment shall be pronounced publicly but the press and public may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the interest of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice.
Alan Parker has already submitted a Plea in Law 7. because of the perceived lack of independence and impartiality of PATAS. He wishes for you to refer the matter to the European Court of Justice for a determination regarding PATAS independence.
I refer to Article 234 of the Treaty establishing the legal entity that is now the European Union now provides:
The third paragraph of Article 234 states that ‘where any such question is raised in a case pending before a court or tribunal of a Member State against whose decisions there is no judicial remedy under national law, that court or tribunal shall bring the matter before the Court of Justice’ to give a ruling thereon.8
I wish now to submit evidence showing that PATAS can be perceived as neither independent nor impartial.
Independence and Impartiality Evidence Against:
It is submitted in no particular order and is intended to give the tribunal and the adjudicator an overview of the lack of independence and lack of impartiality of PATAS and unfortunately yourself as an adjudicator and represents only a fraction of the evidence available.
1. Chief Adjudicator Martin Wood was appointed as Adjudicator by Nick Lester, Director of Association of London Government Transport Environment Committee. 9.
http://www.alg.gov.uk/upload/public/Files/1/Item_12_Reappointment_Parking_Adjudicator_17_Mar_05.doc
Nick Lester has been the ALG's Director of Transport, Environment and Planning since the start of 2001. Prior to that he had set up and been Chief Executive of the Transport Committee for London, and previously established the decriminalised parking enforcement regime in London as London Parking Director. 10.
http://www.alg.gov.uk/doc.asp?doc=6808&cat=1000
2. London Government Directory 11.
http://www.alg.gov.uk/upload/public/attachments/566/ALGDirectory-FINAL.pdf
About the ALG
P12 / 13
The ALGs main policy committee is the Leader’s Committee, made up of the Leaders of the 33 London Councils.
Transport, Environment and Planning
Transport and planning policy, traffic and parking enforcement (inc. managing the London Lorry Control Scheme) concessionary fares and environmental issues….
The section also operates the Parking and Traffic Appeals Service (PATAS) and is responsible for appointing independent lawyers as adjudicators to consider appeals against liability for parking and other penalty charge notices issued by the London Authorities.
The adjudicators handle more than 40,000 appeals a year.
PATAS also runs the congestion charge and appeals service on behalf of Transport for London.
ALG Transport and Environment Committee
Page 19 lists the members from all the local authorities participating in the scheme along with the Chair . Deputy and three Vice Chairs. All are from London Boroughs participating in the scheme and financing the operation.
ALG Staff
p.29
Transport, Environment and Planning
591/2 Southwark Street
London
SE1 0AL
Tel. 0207 7934 9910
Director: Nick Lester Tel. 0207 7934 9905
Head of Policy: Stephen Benton Tel. 0207 7934 9908
Transport, Environment and Planning
Parking and Traffic Appeals:
New Zealand House
80 Haymarket
SW1Y 4TE
Tel. 0207 747 4777
Chief Adjudicator: Martin Wood Tel. 0207 747 4850
Head of Parking and Traffic Appeals: Charlotte Axelson Tel. 0207 747 4831
Chief Congestion Charge Adjudicator: Ingrid Persadsingh Tel. 0207 747 4777
ALG Transport Environment Planning Business Plan 2006 / 7
Responsible for Parking Enforcement Policy Development AND PATAS
Transport for London
New Zealand House
80 Haymarket
London
SW1Y 4TE
Tel. 0207 747 4700
PATAS
Same telephone number as Transport for London
http://www.parkingandtrafficappeals.gov.uk/index.asp
3. TEC Report to the Secretary of State on the Parking and Traffic Appeals Service 2004/2005 12.
http://www.alg.gov.uk/upload/public/attachments/587/Item_13_Patas_Committee_report_20-10-05.doc
“ALGs external auditors, Price Waterhouse Coopers (PWC), provided a review of PATAS as part of their audit plan for 2004-5.”
“PATAS staff have also been undertaking a round of visits to parking departments in individual authorities.”
Is there any evidence again of equality of arms? Do PATAS staff visit appellants at home or at work?
4. Auditors’ review of ALG TEC Parking & Traffic Appeals Service 13.
http://www.alg.gov.uk/upload/public/attachments/334/Item_12_Auditors_Review_PATAS_18_Nov_04.doc
ALG TEC monitors performance indicators and performance levels.
“The quarterly liaison meetings should be used as a forum to obtain the views of London boroughs to establish what further management information they require to improve their own performance in processing penalty Charge Notices.”
5. Press release: ALG warns motorists over misleading advice on parking fines 07/03/2006 14.
The ALG’s Director of Transport, Environment and Planning, Nick Lester, said: “We are concerned that motorists are being misled into believing that they have a right to receive money back following recent decisions by the parking adjudicators.
“These claims are not true and I hope are not being made to raise the profile of anyone’s business. We have consistently urged people to appeal any tickets they feel are unfair, but they must be given the correct information throughout the process.
“All cases that come before the independent adjudicators are dealt with on a case by case basis. They are decided on the evidence provided for that individual case. No decision by an adjudicator set a legal precedent for other cases.”
Exerting undue influence and pressure on the PATAS whose very existence depends on ALG TEC.
If and when it comes to light that an authority has been acting unlawfully then it is up to EVERY motorist to appeal on that point?
That should not be the case
Example of Camden and the illegal signs from the Which Magazine.15. highlights this absolute contempt for the process of law.
http://www.alg.gov.uk/doc.asp?doc=16954
Does the adjudicator think it would be rather time consuming for PATAS should an organisation decide to create a pro-forma defence based on the successful decision and then appeal every one of the 17,000 cases individually?
6. How does a motorist appeal? 16.
http://www.alg.gov.uk/doc.asp?doc=14128&cat=2290
Contains statements such as
“If the challenge is refused the motorist would be informed how to appeal to the independent Parking and Traffic Appeals Service (PATAS)…”
“PATAS provides the service where independent adjudicators listen to the motorist’s side of the issue and that of the boroughs.”
“It is a statutory tribunal with the legal status of a court.”
“The adjudicators are independent solicitors or barristers of at least five years standing, and are appointed with the consent of the Lord Chancellor.”
At no point does it state how PATAS is funded nor does it mention the relationship with ALG TEC and therefore the London Boroughs and Transport for London.
7. The Role of the ALG TEC Parking & Traffic Appeals Service in Relation to the Parking Adjudicators
http://www.alg.gov.uk/upload/public/Files/1/Item_11_Role_of_PATAS.doc
It is vital to the principle of equality of arms that neither the Adjudicators nor PATAS staff provide inappropriate assistance to either party to an appeal. Great care is therefore taken to ensure that, whilst information and procedural guidance is made freely available, advice on the merits of an appeal is not. This is an important distinction. Consultants to the former Lord Chancellor’s Department[1] have described PATAS as ‘the most user focussed aspect of justice in the country’. This relates to procedures and accessibility but not to any advice given on the merits of an appeal. If a Council (or an appellant) considers that a particular decision is wrong, then it has the usual judicial remedies to challenge it. Any discussion or comment outside of that could be misconstrued. Members may feel therefore that, in order to ensure public confidence that the Adjudicators are both independent and free from political pressure, it would not be appropriate for the Committee to go beyond its statutory functions.
University of Birmingham commenting in 1999
It must be noted that Professor Raine from Birmingham University has also produced papers with Caroline Sheppard 17.(Chief Adjudicator for the National Parking Adjudication Service), and the person responsible for setting up the Parking Appeals Service for London at the same time Nick Lester was developing DPE policy) and has produced a report on NPAS commissioned by NCP.18.The NCP Press release conveniently forgets to mention they paid for it.
Professor Raine makes great play of the fact that the six authorities they identify ‘demonstrate high quality practices,’ Sunderland being one of them.
Sunderland have confirmed that they issued 75,000 incorrectly worded PCNs and to date have refunded £34,000.
What is even interesting to note is that the NPAS Press Release 19. mentions the report but fails to mention that it was paid for by NCP 19a, one of the country’s largest enforcement contractors, and fails to mention that Caroline Sheppard has worked alongside Professor Raine, and is herself a Birmingham University alumni.
8. ALG TEC Executive Sub-Committee Revenue Budget 2006/07 20
http://www.alg.gov.uk/upload/public/attachments/613/Item_14_TEC_Exec_Revenue_Budget_2006-07_17-11-05.doc
Once members of the public are aware of the figures contained in this report then any claims of independence by PATAS will be derided.
I do not intend to read out every figure. Even the layman will be able to see that anyone attempting to claim that PATAS is financially independent from ALG and thus TfL and the London Boroughs would be ridiculed.
The Executive Committee is also asked to note:
The revenue outturn forecast of a deficit of £429,000 for 2005/06, primarily relating to parking and traffic and congestion charging appeal transactions,
An increase in expenditure on PATAS appeals of £118,000, arising from increased payments to adjudicators of £180,000, offset by savings of £52,000 relating to payments to Vivista, and £10,000 on postage and stationery costs (refer paragraph 17 for further details);
A reduction in expenditure on Congestion Charging Appeals of £139,000, arising from reduced volumes, £148,000 relating to payments to Vivista, £35,000 on postage and stationery costs, although payments to Adjudicators’ have increased by £44,000 ( refer paragraph 17 for further details);
A reduction in expenditure of £144,000 to cover one-off systems and website developments for PATAS
PATAS Adjudicators Fees and Training – The budget for adjudicators’ fees and training has been increased by 3%, or £37,000 to cover the 2005 pay award, which keeps he Adjudicators’ pay at 80% of that for Group 7 full-time judicial appointments outside London, as agreed by the Committee in November 2001. This increases the hourly fees from £51.85 to £53.40[2], a £1.55 increase, which includes employers’ National Insurance Contributions. The estimated volume of PATAS appeals for 2006/07, based on current volumes, is 56,600, a 5,210 reduction on the estimate of 61,810 for the current year, which was derived in November 2004. The actual number of appeals heard in 2004/05 was just under 63,000, including Statutory Declarations, Moving Traffic Offences and Lorry Ban Appeals.
CC Adjudicators Fees and Training – For the same reasons as detailed for PATAS above, the budget for CC adjudicators’ fees and training has been adjusted to £491,000 for 2006/07, to cover the estimated volume of CC appeals for 2005/06 of 21,372, an 18,628 decrease on the budgeted estimate of 40,000 appeals for the current year, which was estimated in November 2004. The actual number of CC Appeals dealt with in 2004/05, including Statutory Declarations, was 34,737. As a result, unit charges for congestion charging appeals will need to increase from £28.63 to £33.05, an increase of £4.42 or 15.4% (refer paragraph 45-46). The Committee should note, therefore, that there is a differential unit cost between PATAS and CC appeals being proposed for the first time in 2006/07.
[1] Hourly rate paid to Adjudicators is £48.55; employers NIC’s @10% is £4.85, making an hourly cost to the ALG of £53.40.
Accommodation Costs - New Zealand House –The budget for 2006/07 has been adjusted for inflation of 2.5% on non-rent/business rates budget heads. The overall NZH premises budget for NZH for 2006/067 is, therefore, £755,000.
Subscriptions and Charges to London Boroughs
Parking Core Administration Charge – The core subscription covers a proportion of the cost of the central management and policy work of the Committee and its related staff, accommodation, contract monitoring and other general expenses. It is charged to boroughs at a uniform rate, which for 2005/06 was £5,272. In accordance with the recommendations of the Leaders’ Committee when setting the ALG’s overall three-year Financial Plan in November 2003, it is proposed to increase the Parking Core Administration Charge by £156 or 2.95% to £5,428 per borough for 2006/07.
Parking Enforcement Service Charge - the majority of this charge is made up of the fixed cost element of the parking facilities management contract and the provision of accommodation and administrative support to the PATAS adjudicators at New Zealand House. It is allocated to boroughs in accordance with the number of PCNs issued. For 2005/06, expenditure of £2.620m is being recouped, which when apportioned across the 5.936m PCN’s issued by boroughs and TfL in 2004/05, equates to a rate of £0.44 per PCN. For 2006/07, expenditure of £2.791m needs to be recouped, which is detailed in Table 2 below:
Table 2 – Breakdown of the Parking Enforcement Service Charge 2006/07
£000
Vivista Fixed Contract Costs
1,842
New Zealand House Premises Costs
391
Direct Staffing Costs
412
General Office Expenditure
91
Central Recharges
55
Total
2,791
Details of the actual number of PCN’s issued per borough and by TfL in 2004/05 are included at Appendix D. A total of 5.910m PCN’s were issued by boroughs and TfL in 2004/05 in respect of parking and bus lane enforcement, although there is a retrospective adjustment of 53,452 PCN’s to these figures due to incorrect figures being provided by the City of Westminster for the current financial year. The adjusted PCN figure is, therefore, 5.857m. This equates to £0.4765p per PCN, an increase of £0.0365 or 8.3% on the Parking Enforcement Service Charge of £0.44 per PCN for 2005/06. For comparison, it should be noted that the equivalent charge per PCN has been reduced over the years from £0.68 in 1996/97 – a cash reduction of £0.2035 or 30% (equivalent to a real reduction in costs of £0.4635 or 97%[3]).
45. Parking Appeals – As detailed in paragraphs 15-17, the increase in the number of appeals contested by boroughs from under 70% to 76% in 2005/06 has led to an increase in the cost of appeals. For 2006/07, the costs are best illustrated in Table 5 below:
Table 5 – Proposed Cost of Appeals 2006/07
PATAS
CC
No. of Appeals
56,600
21,373
Average Case per hour[4]
2.42
2.41
Adjudicator Hours
23,388
8,868
Training Hours
600
350
Total Hours
23,988
9,218
£
£
Expenditure
Adjudicators Fees
1,280,959
492,241
Vivista Variable Costs
458,560
173,113
Postage/Admin
108,672
41,034
Total
1,848,091
706,388
Income
Hearing Fees
1,848,091
706,388
Unit Cost of Appeal
32.65
33.05
In order to fully cover the costs of both PATAS and CC appeals, the unit cost of a PATAS appeal will need to increase from the current rate of £28.63 to £32.65, an increase of £4.02, or 14% (10.75% in real terms). For CC appeals, the unit cost will need to increase from the current rate of £28.63 to £33.05, an increase of £4.42, or 15.4% (12% in real terms). If these proposed unit costs are approved, there will be a differential between the unit cost of PATAS
50. Income from TfL - As Tfl are a member of TEC, the proposed Parking Core Subscription for 2006/07 of £5,428 and the average borough Lorry Ban Subscription of £5,355 for 2006/07 will be payable by TfL. In addition, income of £166,000 is expected to accrue from Parking Enforcement Service Charge, as detailed in paragraphs 33-35 above, based on the 352,070 PCN’s issued in 2004/05. A sum of £116,000 is expected to accrue from Bus lane appeals and a further £55,000 from TfL use of other parking systems. A further £48,000 relates to the TfL funding for the two Mobility Assessment posts.
9. Key issues: 27 June 2003
26/06/2003
http://www.alg.gov.uk/doc.asp?doc=9386&cat=1237
Congestion chargingThe Parking and Traffic Appeals Service (PATAS) – run by our Transport and Environment Committee - is now also handling congestion charging appeals on behalf of Transport for London. PATAS had received 6,911 appeals in the 2½ months up until the end of May (compared to an anticipated 7,000 over a full year). TfL did not contest more than 2,400 of these, and is looking at ways to improve its own processes in an effort to reduce the number of appeals. The new issue of our London Bulletin, to be distributed through town halls next week, includes a feature on the congestion charge appeals process. Meanwhile, latest figures from TfL show that total traffic entering the charge zone has declined by 20 per cent, and bus speeds have improved by around 15 per cent, since the scheme was introduced in February.Contact: Mark Valleley on 020 7934 9906 or mark.valleley@alg.gov.uk
10. Parking Business Support Contract 2007 Procurement Programme
http://www.alg.gov.uk/upload/public/Files/1/Item_09_Business_Support_Contract_09_Feb_05.doc
Background
1. The present business support contract is provided by Vivista Ltd (Securicor Information Services at the time the original contract was let), the primary focus of the service is PATAS, based at New Zealand House, but they also support TEC Operations and provide ancillary services such as TRACE, debt registration at Northampton County Court and the persistent evaders’ database.
11. Parking Adjudicators Annual Report 2004-5 21.
http://www.patas.org.uk/ActivePublisher/img/upLoad/Parking_Adjudicators_Annual_Report_2004-2005.pdf
Foreward by Martin Wood, Chief Adjudicator.
“An important part of my responsibilities is to represent the Parking Adjudicators at a variety of events and this year has been no exception. In November 2004, with Charlotte Axelson, the Head of PATAS, I attended the Annual Conference of the Council on Tribunals.
The main focus of the conference was once again the Government’s Tribunals for Users Programme. Lord Falconer, the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs and Lord Chancellor, gave the keynote address. He spoke of the importance of the reform programme for providing accessible justice. He also placed emphasis on the fact that the creation of the new Tribunals Service will remove the present accountability of tribunals to the decision-making bodies whose cases they decide and so provide clear independence for tribunals. Another important aim, he said, is improvements in first tier decision making through feedback mechanisms so that departments get decisions right first time. Our recommendation in our last annual report about feedback mechanisms in Local Authorities is very much in tune with this thinking.”
Well, if they are not independent now, but hope to be in the future, it looks bleak for anyone wishing to receive an independent and impartial hearing in the interim!
11. Landor CONFERENCES Tuesday 23rd November 2004
NPAS Adjudicator Caroline Sheppard responsible for setting up the London Parking Appeals system networking and speaking at the conference with Nick Lester Director of ALG and responsible for DPE Policy, members of Local Authority enforcement regimes, Equita Bailiffs and even Bob MacNaughton, Head of NCP.
Ends with a drinks reception celebrating 15 years of Parking Review.
Is this ethical for a Chief Adjudicator?
12. Examples of ECHR decisions regarding ‘independence and impartiality.’
McGonnell v UK 23
McGonnell pointed complained that he had not received a fair hearing when the Bailiff of Guernsey rejected an appeal in 1995 over change of land use.
He pointed out that the Bailiff had presided over the island’s legislature when it adopted a Development Plan in which McGonnell’s representations were overridden.
The ECHR (INC. OUR OLD FRIEND Lord Justice John Laws again) held unanimously that there had been a breach of Article 6(1): any direct involvement in the passage of legislation, or of executive rules, was likely to be of sufficient to cast doubt on the judicial impartiality of a person later called upon to determine a dispute.
Applying the same principle, Nick Lester was involved with policy decisions relating to DPE and now appoints and funds via the ALG TEC the supposed independent persons adjudicating on that very policy.
13. Other case evidence to be introduced is: 24
Findlay v UK
Hausschildt v Denmark
Fey v Austria
Coeme and others v Belgium
Van de Hurk vThe Netherlands
Tierce and Others v San Marino
Ferrantelli and Santangelo v Italy
Thaler v Austria
13.Report of the Review of Tribunals by Sir Andrew Leggatt (March 2001) 25.
http://www.tribunals-review.org.uk/leggatthtm/leg-13.htm
He writes,
“14 The PAS is sponsored by the Association of London Government’s Transport and Environment Committee, which is in turn funded by the Local Authorities against whom appeals to the PAS are made. The PAS is financed by a levy from the boroughs payable for each penalty charge notice issued. Responding to consultation, the Chief Adjudicator of the PAS accepted that such a close relationship could be disadvantageous in that the PAS might not be seen as sufficiently independent of the boroughs, and noted that the issue was occasionally raised by appellants. He did not, however, believe this to be a major issue in practice. Indeed, he argued that the close relationship facilitated effective identification of issues of broad concern.”
16 Local authorities rarely send representatives to hearings. Every set of papers, however, includes a statement specially prepared by the local authority looking into the background of the case, and from time to time the Chief Adjudicator meets local authority staff dealing with parking and enforcement to whom he gives feedback and from whom he receives comments about the operation of the system.
14. Report of the Review of Tribunals by Sir Andrew Leggatt (March 2001) 26.
http://www.tribunals-review.org.uk/leggatthtm/leg-02.htm
2.1 This chapter records our concerns that tribunals currently administered by departments with policy responsibilities or whose decisions are tested in the tribunal, are not sufficiently independent, and our recommendations that the Lord Chancellor should assume responsibility for all tribunals, and for making all appointments to them.
2.6 The independence of tribunals is a key issue, and we think it worth reproducing what Sir Oliver Franks said:
We consider that tribunals should properly be regarded as machinery provided by Parliament for adjudication rather than as part of the machinery of administration.
2.21 Departments often involve senior tribunal members and managers in the development of new policies and legislation which may be the subject of future appeals. Where the input of members and managers is sought as part of wider public consultation, their expertise and experience is valuable, and we would certainly not wish to diminish the extent to which it is sought. There is, however, a problem which frequently arises where the same department is responsible for developing the new initiative and for the administration of the tribunal. The policy officials can see themselves as approaching someone who belongs to the same organisation. Where that happens, a culture develops in which tribunal members can be seen by departments and ministers as an integral part of the process of policy development and its subsequent delivery by the policy department. This can compromise their independence severely.
Consider this as we understand the relationship between TfL ALG TEC and PATAS!
2.31 In the interests of securing independence of tribunals by ensuring that they are administered by the department responsible for the administration of justice, and in the interests of achieving a better service through economy of scale, we recommend that the administration of tribunals should become the responsibility of the Lord Chancellor. [3]
Appointments
2.32 Giving users real confidence that appeals are decided by people genuinely independent of departments, in the same way that the judges are, relies on more than independent arrangements for administrative support. There has been welcome progress towards greater consistency in appointments and tenure provisions. But in order to emphasise the independence of these important posts we recommend that it should go further. The same system should be responsible for making both judicial and tribunal appointments, and — in all relevant respects — they should be made in the same way. In current terms, that means the Lord Chancellor should assume responsibility for all appointments to tribunals which would otherwise be made by Westminster ministers (in consultation, as necessary, with other members of the UK Government or members of the devolved administrations).
Bill of Rights 1689 / Declaration of Rights 1689
Finally, it is Alan Parker’s claim that the levying of a Penalty Charge by Transport for London.
He has already submitted a copy of the Declaration of Rights 1689 27.
This Declaration was incorporated as a Parliamentary documents, the Bill of Rights 1689 28, and it is one of the basic documents of English Constitutional Law.
It is the claim of Alan Parker that:
The Declaration of Rights is NOT a Creature of Parliament and
unlike the Bill of Rights is NOT subject to alteration or regulation
by any Parliament –
That said, both state
“that all grants and promises of fines an forfeitures of particular persons before conviction are illegal and void.”
In 1913 in the case of Bowles v Bank of England it was ruled that the Bill
of Rights still stood, and the Crown could not justify any infringement of its provisions.
On 21 July 1993, the Speaker of The House of Commons issued a reminder to the courts. Betty Boothroyd said: ‘There has of course been no amendment to The Bill of Rights…the house is entitled to expect that The Bill of Rights will be fully respected by all those appearing before the courts.’
This was also re-affirmed in the case of Thoburn vs City of Sunderland (Supreme Court of Judicature 18th February 2002. Case Number CO/3308/2001) 29.
The decision commonly referred to as the "Metric Martyrs" Judgment was handed down in the Divisional Court by Lord Justice Laws and Mr Justice Crane:
Laws stated:62."We should recognise a hierarchy of Acts of Parliament: as it were 'ordinary' statutes and 'constitutional statutes.' The special status of constitutional statutes follows the special status of constitutional rights. Examples are the ... Bill of Rights 1689 ...63. Ordinary statutes may be impliedly repealed. Constitutional statutes may not…"This was upheld by Lords Bingham, Scott and Steyn in an appeal which went to the House of Lords on Monday, July 15 2002As neither the Road Traffic Act 1991 30. nor the Greater London Authority Act 1999 31 makes any express reference to repealing the necessary section of the Bill of Rights or the Declaration of Rights then Transport for London has no right to demand monies from me, and should refer this matter to a Court of Law in a proper and orderly fashion.
As we have heard, PATAS does not deal in precedents therefore it will not be necessary to rely on Townsend v Transport for London (Case Number 2050330626).32
As the evidence submitted today clearly shows, there is no ‘right of challenge to an independent body’ and therefore the citizen’s rights are not protected.
An application on this very point has been lodged for Judicial Review, 33 and it may be wise to await the outcome of that case.
With reference to this point in Richard Shakespeare’s Case Summary, the Administrative Court Reference is CO/10617/2005 and not CO/10617/2005.
With regard to Lord Justice Laws’ ‘constitutional statutes’ and the Metric Martyrs Judgment, the document from the House of Commons Library (rec. 29th July 2005) states:
“There was no appeal from the Divisional Court to the House of Lords in the Thoburn case, which means the judgment has legal effect. But under the principles of English common law, the judgment may be superseded by another judgment from the Divisional Court or the House of Lords.”
Perhaps this Judicial Review will lead to clarification as to whether all administrative fines and penalties fall or whether the Metric Martyrs were wrongly convicted.
Summary:
I think that the evidence laid before you today puts Alan Parker’s case beyond any reasonable doubt that he is in no way responsible for any Penalty Charge demanded from him by Transport for London.
I do believe that it will give PATAS some points to ponder.
We have shown flaws in the following:
· Transport for London’s Penalty Charge Notice
· The DVLAs V5C Document
· The professional competence of PATAS its adjudicators
· The financial connections between the boroughs, Transport for London and ALG TEC and PATAS
· We have shown administrative connections between the same
· We have shown connections between the policy makers and the adjudicators and established connections between enforcement agencies and both PATAS and NPAS
· We have submitted evidence challenging the independence and impartiality of PATAS and its failure to meet the requirements of Article 6(1) of the ECHR
· We have shown that there is a fundamental conflict with the Declaration and Bill of Rights
Finally, it is somewhat amusing to note that confusion still reigns even in the Case Summary.35
Richard Shakespeare, TfL Enforcement CSR states:
“The Adjudicator’s attention is brought to the fact that drivers have driven past clear signs on their entry into the zone warning them of this and that a charge should be paid”
As the driver, Mr. Decrittenden may or may not have noticed the signs. Mr. Parker, the registered keeper and the person responsible for paying the fine most certainly did not as he sat on his sofa watching Richard and Judy some 100 miles or so away.
Ladies and Gentlemen may be so bold as to state:… “The Game’s Up!”
Additional Notes, References and Information
http://www.alg.gov.uk/upload/public/attachments/715/aboutPATAS.pdf
PATAS 2003-4
By the ALG
http://www.alg.gov.uk/upload/public/attachments/352/TECA4PATAS04FINAL.pdf
Transport Services
The ALG’s Transport and Environment Committee (TEC) is responsible for delivering transport services to Londoners and the London boroughs.
http://www.alg.gov.uk/cat.asp?catId=2290
Road Traffic Act 1991
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/ACTS/acts1991/Ukpga_19910040_en_1.htm#tcon
Parking in London
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/ACTS/acts1991/Ukpga_19910040_en_3.htm#mdiv63
Appointment of parking adjudicators by joint committee of the London authorities.
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/ACTS/acts1991/Ukpga_19910040_en_3.htm#mdiv73
Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994 (c. 22)
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/ACTS/acts1994/Ukpga_19940022_en_1.htm
Owner Liability (PATAS)
http://www.parking-appeals.gov.uk/about/owner_liability.asp
Council on Tribunals
http://www.council-on-tribunals.gov.uk/contact.htm
Lavall v Hammersmith (Adjudicator and the Validity of the PCN)
http://www.patas.org.uk/ActivePublisher/img/upLoad/Parking_Adjudicators_Annual_Report_2004-2005.pdf
Contained in the Adjudicator’s reports 2004-5
Liberty and the Witham and De Haes and Van Gijsels v Belgium
http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/resources/policy-papers/policy-papers-2003/pdf-documents/asylum-legal-aid-aug-2003.pdf
The Association of London Government website states:
“The ALG TEC provides a number of frontline services to London’s residents on behalf of the London boroughs. These include Parking and Traffic Appeals, Parking Services
I could go on but I think that the direct funding relationship between Transport for London and PATAS has been clearly established.
Finally, I wish to introduce evidence that the Bill of Rights 1689 does not allow me to be fined except by a court of law. Transport for London is not a court of law, nor is this tribunal.
1991 Road Traffic Act http://www.opsi.gov.uk/ACTS/acts1991/Ukpga_19910040_en_1.htm#tcon
Parking and Traffic Appeals Service
http://www.patas.org.uk/
[2] Hourly rate paid to Adjudicators is £48.55; employers NIC’s @10% is £4.85, making an hourly cost to the ALG of £53.40.
[3] If the £0.68 unit cost had been inflated by 3% each year since 1996/97, the equivalent 2006/07 charge would be £0.94
[4] Based on cases closed and total adjudicator hours worked 1 April – 30 September 2005
Hearing before the Parking and Traffic Appeals Service (PATAS) 2pm 17th May 2006
Penalty Charge Notice: TL54626983
CASE NUMBER: 9060012941
Evidence:
Correspondence: Transport for London / PATAS with Alan Parker
Opening Statement by Alan Parker
Opening Statement by Neil Herron
The Case
Registered Keeper / Driver and DVLA Evidence
Questions to Colin Moran
Colin Moran’s Evidence
Professional Competence of PATAS
Questions for Simon Aldridge, London Motorists Action Group
Simon Aldridge, London Motorists Action Group, Response
Professional Competence of PATAS (continued): Barrie Segal
Barrie Segal of AppealNow.com Response
Independence and Impartiality of the Adjudicator and PATAS
Independence and Impartiality: evidence Against
Declaration and Bill of Rights 1689 Submission
Summary
Numbered Evidence 1 through
Statement by Alan Parker
My name is Alan Parker of 7 St. Giles’ Court, Rosehill, Willenhall, WV13 2LX
I am the registered keeper of the vehicle, registration number V846 AJO, which I entrusted in good faith to someone else, who chose to drive the vehicle into Central London without my knowledge or express consent.
I am not an expert on the London Congestion Charge, as I live in the Midlands.
I am shocked that as a law abiding citizen that the law allows me to be fined for actions committed by another, and that I have to make a round trip of over two hundred miles to present my case. I consider this unfair and unacceptable that the further someone lives from London the greater the cost of justice.
I am just a layman but I have done some research into the law and I am aware that the 1991 Road Traffic Act does not pursue the offender but directs responsibility to the owner.
Therefore I will present evidence today to the tribunal, assisted in my case by Neil Herron, that this goes against the grain of natural justice and is entirely unsatisfactory and must be challenged.
I intend to introduce evidence that the DVLA never informed me that this would be the case.
I have also made submissions to Transport for London that they have no right to demand money from me. As the Declaration of Rights 1689 states, “that all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of particular persons before conviction are illegal and void,” then they have no lawful authority to demand such monies.
Further to this, I also intend to introduce evidence today, further to my Plea in Law submitted on the 4th March 2006 regarding the lack of independence and impartiality of this tribunal.
It is also my intention to call witness to introduce evidence questioning the professional competence of both PATAS and its adjudicators.
I wish, and intend to make a full and substantive submission before you today regarding the allegation that I am liable for the Penalty Charge (TL54626983) issued by Transport for London.
I wish to call on Neil Herron to help present that submission.
Opening Statement by Neil Herron
May I open by saying that I intend to keep matters as brief as possible, but as there is a substantial amount of evidence to submit to the tribunal
We are aware that the legislation states that the owner is liable for contraventions committed by the driver.
Indeed, the matter was so complex that it was argued all the way to to the Court of Appeal in the case of Regina vs The Parking Adjudicator (Respondent) ex parte The Mayor and Burgesses of the London Borough of Wandsworth (Appellant) where the decision of the adjudicator and the High Court was overturned in the Court of Appeal.
1. http://www.parkingandtrafficappeals.gov.uk/user_documents/francis-v-wandsworth.pdf
Steve Norris MP (Epping Forest)
2.http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199697/cmhansrd/vo961127/debtext/61127-11.htm#61127-11_head0
described the case in the Commons on 27th November 1996 and stated “I fear that a recent case in the Court of Appeal may mean that the benefits of the 1991 Road Traffic Act will be substantially undermined.”
He goes on to describe the case, where the keeper of a vehicle put a car in to a garage for repair and unbeknown to them, incurred a penalty charge.
This was indeed a complicated position and it seems unthinkable that Parliament could consider drafting legislation which makes the owner of a vehicle liable for someone else’s actions, but that is what the court upheld.
Indeed, Mr. Norris goes on to say, “Surely Parliament intended that the people who keep and use the vehicle, not the registered owner, should be liable for parking tickets.”
However, The Minister for Transport gives the game away later. He states, “If owner liability had not been introduced in the Act, the company (referring to company owned vehicles) would have the option of writing back to the authority that issued the PCN, passing the buck. That would seriously undermine the efficiency of the enforcement system. It would require the serving of a further, duplicate, notice, and additional administrative time and cost would be involved.”
He goes on “that would not be in the interests of the majority of drivers …and I do not think that was what Parliament intended when it considered how best to marry protection of the interests of the individual with administrative efficiency.”
So, there we have the real reason. Not about fairness or justice, but ‘administrative efficiency.’ This ‘administrative efficiency’is the real reason that fairness and justice has gone out of the window and DPE and the Congestion Charge PCNs are nothing more than a cash cow and an affront to proper justice.
In all other matters, the owner / keeper has the ability to name the driver. In those instances it is fair and just.
The Wandsworth decision was 10 years ago and as the Congestion Charge has been introduced since, and Decriminalised Parking Enforcement expanded to over 170 local authorities the potential financial liabilities facing people nominating themselves to be the registered keeper has expanded exponentially.
Add to this other civil penalties such as littering and private parking enforcement then the burden on the registered keeper could potentially be extremely punitive…and all without recourse to a proper court of law.
So, we wish to challenge the premise that Parliament actually knew what it was doing, that the Department for Transport was fully aware of the potential legal implications and the DVLA was aware of its legal responsibilities.
Further to this, we will introduce substantial evidence of the following:
(i) That the DVLA has failed to inform the keeper of this potential financial liability.
(ii) That this tribunal is neither independent nor impartial and falls on the European Convention on Human Rights Article 6(1) point.
(iii) That this tribunal has been proven on numerous occasions to be professionally incompetent.
(iv) That under the Bill of Rights 1689 fines can only be levied by a court of law, not Transport for London.
The Case
It is my case to argue whether a reasonable person would be expected to know about the London Congestion Charge, especially if he was not living in London, had never been, nor intended to visit London, and had never had any connection with the Congestion Charge.
Alan Parker loaned the vehicle to Robin Decrittenden.
As the registered keeper Alan Parker would not have seen any signs.
We are at a loss as to how the registered keeper can challenge or use mitigation, which would be Mr. Decrittenden’s defence if he were present. As there is no requirement, nor indeed power to force the attendance of Mr. Decrittenden, Alan Parker has been placed in the impossible position of challenging something, which is alleged to have taken place over a hundred miles away.
This premise of responsibility residing with the keeper goes against the grain of natural justice… To be responsible for an offence with financial penalties for an offence committed by another.
One really has to wonder what Parliament was thinking. Come to think of it, one is beginning to think that more and more as it appears that our legislators do not have the ability to run a whelk stall, never mind a modern twenty first century democracy.
Alan Parker does not have the ability to call Mr. Decrittenden as a witness. Should he choose not to attend as the Parking and Traffic Appeals Service has not powers to force the attendance.
I must point out that Mr. Parker and Mr. Decrittenden have fallen out over this issue and severed a friendship going back many years. He has quite simply refused to pay.
He has however, provided evidence that he was the driver of the vehicle and present in London on that day.
I must also point out the unfairness of Mr. Parker having to make a round trip of over two hundred miles to defend against these allegations and establish his innocence. This is offensive and financially restrictive especially to a person of limited means. He has not been given, nor offered an opportunity to have a hearing at a more convenient venue.
This would also be the case should he be the registered keeper of a vehicle in Land’s End or John O’Groats.
Under the principle of equality of arms this is grossly unfair especially as the hearing venue is inside the Congestion Charge Zone so another charge is incurred simply by attending any hearing.
Alan Parker’s right to a fair trial bestowed by Article 6(1) of the ECHR is key, because this includes the right to equality of arms.
This right has been explicitly recognised in the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights as an element of the Article 6 rights accorded to parties in both civil and criminal proceedings. Each side must have a “reasonable opportunity of presenting his case to the court under conditions which did not place him or her at a substantial disadvantage vis-à-vis their opponent.”
See De Haes and Gijsels v Belgium (1998) 25 EHRR 1.
Also, as Lord Justice Laws (who we have come to be rather fond of) restated in R v Lord Chancellor, ex p Witham (1998) QB 575:
“ The right to a fair trial … of necessity imports the necessity of the right of access to the court.”3.
The whole of the system of Congestion Charge adjudication appeals and those of Decriminalised Parking Penalties can be challenged by anyone outside London on this point alone…but we don’t want to rest there.
Registered Keeper / Driver and DVLA Evidence
Firstly I wish now to introduce evidence that, by Alan Parker nominating himself to be the registered keeper of a vehicle, he was not made aware by the DVLA that he would be liable for contraventions committed by a third party.
Upon checking the DVLA V5 document and the explanatory notes, nowhere does it state that I would be responsible for contraventions committed by third parties simply by ‘owning’ or nominating oneself to be the registered keeper of a vehicle.
I would like to call Mr. Colin Moran who has over 35 years of experience in the industry and who also has assisted the DVLAs Policy Unit to give evidence on this particular point.
Before I do so, I would like to submit that the wording of the Transport for London Penalty Charge Notice 4. is misleading and potentially prejudicial.
It states, “The Penalty Charge Notice has been sent to you as the registered keeper/hirer…”
It goes on, “Important: Liability for this Penalty Charge lies with you the registered keeper…”
But then it allows in Section 4 the Grounds for Appeal ‘I was not the person liable at the time of the contravention.’
Alan Parker duly ticked the box.
He then ticked the box 1 under ‘Representations Against the Penalty Charge’
1. ‘I was not the keeper at the time of the contravention.’
As Mr. Decrittenden, in Alan Parker’s eyes, was ‘the keeper’ and was alleged to have committed the contravention it then Mr. Parker had been misled into thinking that he had filled in the form correctly.
To be correct the Represenation Against the Notice should have stated,
1. ‘I was not the registered keeper at the time of the contravention.’
Then there could have been no potential for prejudice.
I would now like to call Colin Moran.
Questions to Colin Moran
1. Mr. Moran, can you please explain the wording on the V5 document and accompanying notes 5. regarding the registered keeper and owner?
2. Does it state anywhere on the V5 Document or in the accompanying notes that the registered keeper may be liable for contraventions committed by third parties, such as incurring fines under the Congestion Charge or under Decriminalised Parking Enforcement?
3. Are the Department for Transport and the DVLA aware of this anomalous and potentially prejudicial situation and the legal implications for the DVLA should someone suffering distress and loss at the hands of bailiffs take legal action against the agency for failing to inform them of the potential liabilities arising from nominating to become a registered keeper?
4. Transport for London are now including a ‘Congestion Charge Made Simple’ leaflet in V5 literature. Have you seen it?
5. Does it mention anywhere on the leaflet that it is the registered keeper who is responsible for the Congestion Charge?
6. Could it be assumed that the references as to where it is, how to pay and what to look for gives the impression that it is directed to the driver, rather than the registered keeper?
7. Could you give us some examples how a vehicle registered to a keeper may have multiple users?
Colin Moran’s Evidence:
1. The V5 or V5C Registration Document as it is also known makes it clear that the registered keeper is not necessarily the owner , which could lead to a potential prejudice for either party.
Although there is a rebuttal presumption in law that the keeper is the owner it is not clarified in any Transport for London’S communications
2. The V5 Document does not say that you may be liable for contraventions committed by a third party. DVLA’s failure to inform any potential keeper that he may be liable for contraventions committed by other persons.
It does say, “ the registered keeper is not necessarily the legal owner of the vehicle. The registered keeper shall remain liable for the vehicle until the DVLA is informed of any changes.”
The liability includes continuous taxation and informing DVLA under SORN rules and any changes which would include disposing of the vehicle, scrapping of the vehicle or parting with the vehicle to the motor trade and responding to assist enforcement agencies and others regarding the person in charge of the vehicle whilst on the road or indeed its use by the registered keeper or others.
It does not clarify this liability may include fines generated by other parties using the vehicle.
In the majority of circumstances matters relating to the vehicles use the responsibility resides with the registered keeper to provide the enforcement agencies with the name of the driver. But, the 1991 Road Traffic Act and other subsequent remote enforcement legislation places the liability for contraventions (decriminalised enforcement) committed solely with the registered keeper:
2. The Department for Transport and the DVLA have recently become aware of this legal anomaly and that the V5 Document is not explicit as to the conditions relating to the potential liability for someone nominating to become the registered keeper of a vehicle. Both the DfT and the DVLA are urgently looking into the situation.
3. There has been a DfT Consultation to which I have submitted substantial evidence. The Dft decision to consult is the first in 33 years and has been prompted by issues at hand today and public criticism and concerns regarding the data base being available to an increasing number of unaccountable people.
The V5 Document contains no disclaimer and neither do the accompanying notes which the registered keeper is sent.
4. Yes. I was quite amazed.
5. No. there is no mention at all of the registered keeper, nor that the liability to pay the Congestion Charge lies with the registered keeper.The DfT in conjunction with DVLA and TfL have obviously authorised the issue of this leaflet but have completely missed the opportunity to signal the 1991 RTA and its consequences under Decriminalised Enforcement.
6. It seems clear that the leaflet is directed to the person who would be assumed to be driving the vehicle into the Congestion Charge zone. There is nothing in any of the legislation nor a presumption in law that the driver is the registered keeper or vice versa.
7. Yes
Professional Competence of PATAS
I would now like to raise the issue of the professional competence of both PATAS and its adjudicators.
This relates to matters involving Decriminalised Parking Enforcement and in particular the failure of PATAS and its adjudicators to recognise flaws in evidence presented to them by local authorities.
Whilst not directly related to the Congestion Charge it involves calling into question the competence of PATAS, the supposed independent arbiters tasked with dispensing justice, with regard to its core function, Decriminalised Parking Enforcement appeals
In particular, I would like to draw attention to the matter relating to the most fundamental and primary piece of evidence…the Penalty Charge Notice.
I would like to call two witnesses to highlight these points of evidence.
The first is Mr. Simon Aldridge of the London Motorists Action Group, who brought to the attention of the adjudicator the issue of the City of Westminster’s unlawfully worded PCNs.6.
Questions for Simon Aldridge
1. Simon, can you confirm the date and give details of your experience regarding your PATAS appeal against a Penalty Charge Notice issued by the City of Westminster Council?
2. Are you aware of any other cases involving the unlawful wording of PCNs?
3. What percentage of PATAS workload is taken up by City of Westminster appeals?
4. If a PCN can be successfully appealed on the points raised in your previous answers should a local authority continue to issue/
5. Do you consider it a failing by PATAS adjudicators that they have not picked up on the PCN wording problem?
Simon Aldridge (London Motorists Action Group) Responses
1. My Adjudication case Aldridge V Westminster is the latest in a growing line of Adjudications over the non compliance of the wording of various Councils PCNs.
2. The first example I know of being Moulder V LB Sutton in 1995, followed by
Sutton V LB Camden
Als Bar V LB Wandsworth
More recently we have seen
McArthur V Bury, which led NPAS to send out a circular warning Councils of the National implications (04 2005)
Followed by in London the Councils of Barnet, Tower Hamlets, Lambeth and finally Westminster.
3. Westminster on its own accounts for almost 25% of PATAS workload, and from annual reports on Appeals to PATAS I can see that in a single year since the Bury V McArthur circular PATAS has Adjudicated an estimated 10,000 identically deficient Westminster PCNs alone prior to finding my particular PCN non compliant.
10,000 Adjudications without presumably having properly examined the PCN itself in proper detail.
4. It must be pointed out that a local authority that is aware that its PCNs can be successfully appealed on this point in EVERY instance and continues to issue PCNs it knows to be invalid will most certainly be guilty of vexatious pursuit and its officers guilty of misfeasance.
5. Simon to expand this answer
Simon Aldridge
19 Christchurch Rd, London, N8 9QL
0208 374 2917
lmag@blueyonder.co.uk
Professional Competence of PATAS (continued)
I would now like to call Barrie Segal of AppealNow.com to give evidence. Barrie is no stranger to PATAS appeals and has ample evidence to introduce to the proceedings.
Barrie, in your submission could you indicate and give your examples as to how you believe PATAS to be professionally incompetent?
Barrie Segal of AppealNow.com: Submission
Independence and Impartiality of the Adjudicator and PATAS
I now wish to introduce evidence that PATAS is not independent and that there is a direct financial and beneficial relationship between Transport for London and PATAS and therefore yourself.
Before introducing the evidence I would like to ask you a number of questions:
1. Who was responsible for interview and your subsequent appointment as an adjudicator?
2. Who was responsible for your initial training and who is responsible for keeping you up to date with adjudication decisions and ongoing training?
3. Are you aware that the Transport for London and the London Boroughs via the Association of London Government has a direct funding relationship with the supposed independent PATAS?
4. Who is responsible for your remuneration, salary and pension contributions?
5. Are you dependent on this income?
Article 6 (1) of the European Convention on Human Rights states:
ARTICLE 6
RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL
1. In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. Judgment shall be pronounced publicly but the press and public may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the interest of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice.
Alan Parker has already submitted a Plea in Law 7. because of the perceived lack of independence and impartiality of PATAS. He wishes for you to refer the matter to the European Court of Justice for a determination regarding PATAS independence.
I refer to Article 234 of the Treaty establishing the legal entity that is now the European Union now provides:
The third paragraph of Article 234 states that ‘where any such question is raised in a case pending before a court or tribunal of a Member State against whose decisions there is no judicial remedy under national law, that court or tribunal shall bring the matter before the Court of Justice’ to give a ruling thereon.8
I wish now to submit evidence showing that PATAS can be perceived as neither independent nor impartial.
Independence and Impartiality Evidence Against:
It is submitted in no particular order and is intended to give the tribunal and the adjudicator an overview of the lack of independence and lack of impartiality of PATAS and unfortunately yourself as an adjudicator and represents only a fraction of the evidence available.
1. Chief Adjudicator Martin Wood was appointed as Adjudicator by Nick Lester, Director of Association of London Government Transport Environment Committee. 9.
http://www.alg.gov.uk/upload/public/Files/1/Item_12_Reappointment_Parking_Adjudicator_17_Mar_05.doc
Nick Lester has been the ALG's Director of Transport, Environment and Planning since the start of 2001. Prior to that he had set up and been Chief Executive of the Transport Committee for London, and previously established the decriminalised parking enforcement regime in London as London Parking Director. 10.
http://www.alg.gov.uk/doc.asp?doc=6808&cat=1000
2. London Government Directory 11.
http://www.alg.gov.uk/upload/public/attachments/566/ALGDirectory-FINAL.pdf
About the ALG
P12 / 13
The ALGs main policy committee is the Leader’s Committee, made up of the Leaders of the 33 London Councils.
Transport, Environment and Planning
Transport and planning policy, traffic and parking enforcement (inc. managing the London Lorry Control Scheme) concessionary fares and environmental issues….
The section also operates the Parking and Traffic Appeals Service (PATAS) and is responsible for appointing independent lawyers as adjudicators to consider appeals against liability for parking and other penalty charge notices issued by the London Authorities.
The adjudicators handle more than 40,000 appeals a year.
PATAS also runs the congestion charge and appeals service on behalf of Transport for London.
ALG Transport and Environment Committee
Page 19 lists the members from all the local authorities participating in the scheme along with the Chair . Deputy and three Vice Chairs. All are from London Boroughs participating in the scheme and financing the operation.
ALG Staff
p.29
Transport, Environment and Planning
591/2 Southwark Street
London
SE1 0AL
Tel. 0207 7934 9910
Director: Nick Lester Tel. 0207 7934 9905
Head of Policy: Stephen Benton Tel. 0207 7934 9908
Transport, Environment and Planning
Parking and Traffic Appeals:
New Zealand House
80 Haymarket
SW1Y 4TE
Tel. 0207 747 4777
Chief Adjudicator: Martin Wood Tel. 0207 747 4850
Head of Parking and Traffic Appeals: Charlotte Axelson Tel. 0207 747 4831
Chief Congestion Charge Adjudicator: Ingrid Persadsingh Tel. 0207 747 4777
ALG Transport Environment Planning Business Plan 2006 / 7
Responsible for Parking Enforcement Policy Development AND PATAS
Transport for London
New Zealand House
80 Haymarket
London
SW1Y 4TE
Tel. 0207 747 4700
PATAS
Same telephone number as Transport for London
http://www.parkingandtrafficappeals.gov.uk/index.asp
3. TEC Report to the Secretary of State on the Parking and Traffic Appeals Service 2004/2005 12.
http://www.alg.gov.uk/upload/public/attachments/587/Item_13_Patas_Committee_report_20-10-05.doc
“ALGs external auditors, Price Waterhouse Coopers (PWC), provided a review of PATAS as part of their audit plan for 2004-5.”
“PATAS staff have also been undertaking a round of visits to parking departments in individual authorities.”
Is there any evidence again of equality of arms? Do PATAS staff visit appellants at home or at work?
4. Auditors’ review of ALG TEC Parking & Traffic Appeals Service 13.
http://www.alg.gov.uk/upload/public/attachments/334/Item_12_Auditors_Review_PATAS_18_Nov_04.doc
ALG TEC monitors performance indicators and performance levels.
“The quarterly liaison meetings should be used as a forum to obtain the views of London boroughs to establish what further management information they require to improve their own performance in processing penalty Charge Notices.”
5. Press release: ALG warns motorists over misleading advice on parking fines 07/03/2006 14.
The ALG’s Director of Transport, Environment and Planning, Nick Lester, said: “We are concerned that motorists are being misled into believing that they have a right to receive money back following recent decisions by the parking adjudicators.
“These claims are not true and I hope are not being made to raise the profile of anyone’s business. We have consistently urged people to appeal any tickets they feel are unfair, but they must be given the correct information throughout the process.
“All cases that come before the independent adjudicators are dealt with on a case by case basis. They are decided on the evidence provided for that individual case. No decision by an adjudicator set a legal precedent for other cases.”
Exerting undue influence and pressure on the PATAS whose very existence depends on ALG TEC.
If and when it comes to light that an authority has been acting unlawfully then it is up to EVERY motorist to appeal on that point?
That should not be the case
Example of Camden and the illegal signs from the Which Magazine.15. highlights this absolute contempt for the process of law.
http://www.alg.gov.uk/doc.asp?doc=16954
Does the adjudicator think it would be rather time consuming for PATAS should an organisation decide to create a pro-forma defence based on the successful decision and then appeal every one of the 17,000 cases individually?
6. How does a motorist appeal? 16.
http://www.alg.gov.uk/doc.asp?doc=14128&cat=2290
Contains statements such as
“If the challenge is refused the motorist would be informed how to appeal to the independent Parking and Traffic Appeals Service (PATAS)…”
“PATAS provides the service where independent adjudicators listen to the motorist’s side of the issue and that of the boroughs.”
“It is a statutory tribunal with the legal status of a court.”
“The adjudicators are independent solicitors or barristers of at least five years standing, and are appointed with the consent of the Lord Chancellor.”
At no point does it state how PATAS is funded nor does it mention the relationship with ALG TEC and therefore the London Boroughs and Transport for London.
7. The Role of the ALG TEC Parking & Traffic Appeals Service in Relation to the Parking Adjudicators
http://www.alg.gov.uk/upload/public/Files/1/Item_11_Role_of_PATAS.doc
It is vital to the principle of equality of arms that neither the Adjudicators nor PATAS staff provide inappropriate assistance to either party to an appeal. Great care is therefore taken to ensure that, whilst information and procedural guidance is made freely available, advice on the merits of an appeal is not. This is an important distinction. Consultants to the former Lord Chancellor’s Department[1] have described PATAS as ‘the most user focussed aspect of justice in the country’. This relates to procedures and accessibility but not to any advice given on the merits of an appeal. If a Council (or an appellant) considers that a particular decision is wrong, then it has the usual judicial remedies to challenge it. Any discussion or comment outside of that could be misconstrued. Members may feel therefore that, in order to ensure public confidence that the Adjudicators are both independent and free from political pressure, it would not be appropriate for the Committee to go beyond its statutory functions.
University of Birmingham commenting in 1999
It must be noted that Professor Raine from Birmingham University has also produced papers with Caroline Sheppard 17.(Chief Adjudicator for the National Parking Adjudication Service), and the person responsible for setting up the Parking Appeals Service for London at the same time Nick Lester was developing DPE policy) and has produced a report on NPAS commissioned by NCP.18.The NCP Press release conveniently forgets to mention they paid for it.
Professor Raine makes great play of the fact that the six authorities they identify ‘demonstrate high quality practices,’ Sunderland being one of them.
Sunderland have confirmed that they issued 75,000 incorrectly worded PCNs and to date have refunded £34,000.
What is even interesting to note is that the NPAS Press Release 19. mentions the report but fails to mention that it was paid for by NCP 19a, one of the country’s largest enforcement contractors, and fails to mention that Caroline Sheppard has worked alongside Professor Raine, and is herself a Birmingham University alumni.
8. ALG TEC Executive Sub-Committee Revenue Budget 2006/07 20
http://www.alg.gov.uk/upload/public/attachments/613/Item_14_TEC_Exec_Revenue_Budget_2006-07_17-11-05.doc
Once members of the public are aware of the figures contained in this report then any claims of independence by PATAS will be derided.
I do not intend to read out every figure. Even the layman will be able to see that anyone attempting to claim that PATAS is financially independent from ALG and thus TfL and the London Boroughs would be ridiculed.
The Executive Committee is also asked to note:
The revenue outturn forecast of a deficit of £429,000 for 2005/06, primarily relating to parking and traffic and congestion charging appeal transactions,
An increase in expenditure on PATAS appeals of £118,000, arising from increased payments to adjudicators of £180,000, offset by savings of £52,000 relating to payments to Vivista, and £10,000 on postage and stationery costs (refer paragraph 17 for further details);
A reduction in expenditure on Congestion Charging Appeals of £139,000, arising from reduced volumes, £148,000 relating to payments to Vivista, £35,000 on postage and stationery costs, although payments to Adjudicators’ have increased by £44,000 ( refer paragraph 17 for further details);
A reduction in expenditure of £144,000 to cover one-off systems and website developments for PATAS
PATAS Adjudicators Fees and Training – The budget for adjudicators’ fees and training has been increased by 3%, or £37,000 to cover the 2005 pay award, which keeps he Adjudicators’ pay at 80% of that for Group 7 full-time judicial appointments outside London, as agreed by the Committee in November 2001. This increases the hourly fees from £51.85 to £53.40[2], a £1.55 increase, which includes employers’ National Insurance Contributions. The estimated volume of PATAS appeals for 2006/07, based on current volumes, is 56,600, a 5,210 reduction on the estimate of 61,810 for the current year, which was derived in November 2004. The actual number of appeals heard in 2004/05 was just under 63,000, including Statutory Declarations, Moving Traffic Offences and Lorry Ban Appeals.
CC Adjudicators Fees and Training – For the same reasons as detailed for PATAS above, the budget for CC adjudicators’ fees and training has been adjusted to £491,000 for 2006/07, to cover the estimated volume of CC appeals for 2005/06 of 21,372, an 18,628 decrease on the budgeted estimate of 40,000 appeals for the current year, which was estimated in November 2004. The actual number of CC Appeals dealt with in 2004/05, including Statutory Declarations, was 34,737. As a result, unit charges for congestion charging appeals will need to increase from £28.63 to £33.05, an increase of £4.42 or 15.4% (refer paragraph 45-46). The Committee should note, therefore, that there is a differential unit cost between PATAS and CC appeals being proposed for the first time in 2006/07.
[1] Hourly rate paid to Adjudicators is £48.55; employers NIC’s @10% is £4.85, making an hourly cost to the ALG of £53.40.
Accommodation Costs - New Zealand House –The budget for 2006/07 has been adjusted for inflation of 2.5% on non-rent/business rates budget heads. The overall NZH premises budget for NZH for 2006/067 is, therefore, £755,000.
Subscriptions and Charges to London Boroughs
Parking Core Administration Charge – The core subscription covers a proportion of the cost of the central management and policy work of the Committee and its related staff, accommodation, contract monitoring and other general expenses. It is charged to boroughs at a uniform rate, which for 2005/06 was £5,272. In accordance with the recommendations of the Leaders’ Committee when setting the ALG’s overall three-year Financial Plan in November 2003, it is proposed to increase the Parking Core Administration Charge by £156 or 2.95% to £5,428 per borough for 2006/07.
Parking Enforcement Service Charge - the majority of this charge is made up of the fixed cost element of the parking facilities management contract and the provision of accommodation and administrative support to the PATAS adjudicators at New Zealand House. It is allocated to boroughs in accordance with the number of PCNs issued. For 2005/06, expenditure of £2.620m is being recouped, which when apportioned across the 5.936m PCN’s issued by boroughs and TfL in 2004/05, equates to a rate of £0.44 per PCN. For 2006/07, expenditure of £2.791m needs to be recouped, which is detailed in Table 2 below:
Table 2 – Breakdown of the Parking Enforcement Service Charge 2006/07
£000
Vivista Fixed Contract Costs
1,842
New Zealand House Premises Costs
391
Direct Staffing Costs
412
General Office Expenditure
91
Central Recharges
55
Total
2,791
Details of the actual number of PCN’s issued per borough and by TfL in 2004/05 are included at Appendix D. A total of 5.910m PCN’s were issued by boroughs and TfL in 2004/05 in respect of parking and bus lane enforcement, although there is a retrospective adjustment of 53,452 PCN’s to these figures due to incorrect figures being provided by the City of Westminster for the current financial year. The adjusted PCN figure is, therefore, 5.857m. This equates to £0.4765p per PCN, an increase of £0.0365 or 8.3% on the Parking Enforcement Service Charge of £0.44 per PCN for 2005/06. For comparison, it should be noted that the equivalent charge per PCN has been reduced over the years from £0.68 in 1996/97 – a cash reduction of £0.2035 or 30% (equivalent to a real reduction in costs of £0.4635 or 97%[3]).
45. Parking Appeals – As detailed in paragraphs 15-17, the increase in the number of appeals contested by boroughs from under 70% to 76% in 2005/06 has led to an increase in the cost of appeals. For 2006/07, the costs are best illustrated in Table 5 below:
Table 5 – Proposed Cost of Appeals 2006/07
PATAS
CC
No. of Appeals
56,600
21,373
Average Case per hour[4]
2.42
2.41
Adjudicator Hours
23,388
8,868
Training Hours
600
350
Total Hours
23,988
9,218
£
£
Expenditure
Adjudicators Fees
1,280,959
492,241
Vivista Variable Costs
458,560
173,113
Postage/Admin
108,672
41,034
Total
1,848,091
706,388
Income
Hearing Fees
1,848,091
706,388
Unit Cost of Appeal
32.65
33.05
In order to fully cover the costs of both PATAS and CC appeals, the unit cost of a PATAS appeal will need to increase from the current rate of £28.63 to £32.65, an increase of £4.02, or 14% (10.75% in real terms). For CC appeals, the unit cost will need to increase from the current rate of £28.63 to £33.05, an increase of £4.42, or 15.4% (12% in real terms). If these proposed unit costs are approved, there will be a differential between the unit cost of PATAS
50. Income from TfL - As Tfl are a member of TEC, the proposed Parking Core Subscription for 2006/07 of £5,428 and the average borough Lorry Ban Subscription of £5,355 for 2006/07 will be payable by TfL. In addition, income of £166,000 is expected to accrue from Parking Enforcement Service Charge, as detailed in paragraphs 33-35 above, based on the 352,070 PCN’s issued in 2004/05. A sum of £116,000 is expected to accrue from Bus lane appeals and a further £55,000 from TfL use of other parking systems. A further £48,000 relates to the TfL funding for the two Mobility Assessment posts.
9. Key issues: 27 June 2003
26/06/2003
http://www.alg.gov.uk/doc.asp?doc=9386&cat=1237
Congestion chargingThe Parking and Traffic Appeals Service (PATAS) – run by our Transport and Environment Committee - is now also handling congestion charging appeals on behalf of Transport for London. PATAS had received 6,911 appeals in the 2½ months up until the end of May (compared to an anticipated 7,000 over a full year). TfL did not contest more than 2,400 of these, and is looking at ways to improve its own processes in an effort to reduce the number of appeals. The new issue of our London Bulletin, to be distributed through town halls next week, includes a feature on the congestion charge appeals process. Meanwhile, latest figures from TfL show that total traffic entering the charge zone has declined by 20 per cent, and bus speeds have improved by around 15 per cent, since the scheme was introduced in February.Contact: Mark Valleley on 020 7934 9906 or mark.valleley@alg.gov.uk
10. Parking Business Support Contract 2007 Procurement Programme
http://www.alg.gov.uk/upload/public/Files/1/Item_09_Business_Support_Contract_09_Feb_05.doc
Background
1. The present business support contract is provided by Vivista Ltd (Securicor Information Services at the time the original contract was let), the primary focus of the service is PATAS, based at New Zealand House, but they also support TEC Operations and provide ancillary services such as TRACE, debt registration at Northampton County Court and the persistent evaders’ database.
11. Parking Adjudicators Annual Report 2004-5 21.
http://www.patas.org.uk/ActivePublisher/img/upLoad/Parking_Adjudicators_Annual_Report_2004-2005.pdf
Foreward by Martin Wood, Chief Adjudicator.
“An important part of my responsibilities is to represent the Parking Adjudicators at a variety of events and this year has been no exception. In November 2004, with Charlotte Axelson, the Head of PATAS, I attended the Annual Conference of the Council on Tribunals.
The main focus of the conference was once again the Government’s Tribunals for Users Programme. Lord Falconer, the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs and Lord Chancellor, gave the keynote address. He spoke of the importance of the reform programme for providing accessible justice. He also placed emphasis on the fact that the creation of the new Tribunals Service will remove the present accountability of tribunals to the decision-making bodies whose cases they decide and so provide clear independence for tribunals. Another important aim, he said, is improvements in first tier decision making through feedback mechanisms so that departments get decisions right first time. Our recommendation in our last annual report about feedback mechanisms in Local Authorities is very much in tune with this thinking.”
Well, if they are not independent now, but hope to be in the future, it looks bleak for anyone wishing to receive an independent and impartial hearing in the interim!
11. Landor CONFERENCES Tuesday 23rd November 2004
NPAS Adjudicator Caroline Sheppard responsible for setting up the London Parking Appeals system networking and speaking at the conference with Nick Lester Director of ALG and responsible for DPE Policy, members of Local Authority enforcement regimes, Equita Bailiffs and even Bob MacNaughton, Head of NCP.
Ends with a drinks reception celebrating 15 years of Parking Review.
Is this ethical for a Chief Adjudicator?
12. Examples of ECHR decisions regarding ‘independence and impartiality.’
McGonnell v UK 23
McGonnell pointed complained that he had not received a fair hearing when the Bailiff of Guernsey rejected an appeal in 1995 over change of land use.
He pointed out that the Bailiff had presided over the island’s legislature when it adopted a Development Plan in which McGonnell’s representations were overridden.
The ECHR (INC. OUR OLD FRIEND Lord Justice John Laws again) held unanimously that there had been a breach of Article 6(1): any direct involvement in the passage of legislation, or of executive rules, was likely to be of sufficient to cast doubt on the judicial impartiality of a person later called upon to determine a dispute.
Applying the same principle, Nick Lester was involved with policy decisions relating to DPE and now appoints and funds via the ALG TEC the supposed independent persons adjudicating on that very policy.
13. Other case evidence to be introduced is: 24
Findlay v UK
Hausschildt v Denmark
Fey v Austria
Coeme and others v Belgium
Van de Hurk vThe Netherlands
Tierce and Others v San Marino
Ferrantelli and Santangelo v Italy
Thaler v Austria
13.Report of the Review of Tribunals by Sir Andrew Leggatt (March 2001) 25.
http://www.tribunals-review.org.uk/leggatthtm/leg-13.htm
He writes,
“14 The PAS is sponsored by the Association of London Government’s Transport and Environment Committee, which is in turn funded by the Local Authorities against whom appeals to the PAS are made. The PAS is financed by a levy from the boroughs payable for each penalty charge notice issued. Responding to consultation, the Chief Adjudicator of the PAS accepted that such a close relationship could be disadvantageous in that the PAS might not be seen as sufficiently independent of the boroughs, and noted that the issue was occasionally raised by appellants. He did not, however, believe this to be a major issue in practice. Indeed, he argued that the close relationship facilitated effective identification of issues of broad concern.”
16 Local authorities rarely send representatives to hearings. Every set of papers, however, includes a statement specially prepared by the local authority looking into the background of the case, and from time to time the Chief Adjudicator meets local authority staff dealing with parking and enforcement to whom he gives feedback and from whom he receives comments about the operation of the system.
14. Report of the Review of Tribunals by Sir Andrew Leggatt (March 2001) 26.
http://www.tribunals-review.org.uk/leggatthtm/leg-02.htm
2.1 This chapter records our concerns that tribunals currently administered by departments with policy responsibilities or whose decisions are tested in the tribunal, are not sufficiently independent, and our recommendations that the Lord Chancellor should assume responsibility for all tribunals, and for making all appointments to them.
2.6 The independence of tribunals is a key issue, and we think it worth reproducing what Sir Oliver Franks said:
We consider that tribunals should properly be regarded as machinery provided by Parliament for adjudication rather than as part of the machinery of administration.
2.21 Departments often involve senior tribunal members and managers in the development of new policies and legislation which may be the subject of future appeals. Where the input of members and managers is sought as part of wider public consultation, their expertise and experience is valuable, and we would certainly not wish to diminish the extent to which it is sought. There is, however, a problem which frequently arises where the same department is responsible for developing the new initiative and for the administration of the tribunal. The policy officials can see themselves as approaching someone who belongs to the same organisation. Where that happens, a culture develops in which tribunal members can be seen by departments and ministers as an integral part of the process of policy development and its subsequent delivery by the policy department. This can compromise their independence severely.
Consider this as we understand the relationship between TfL ALG TEC and PATAS!
2.31 In the interests of securing independence of tribunals by ensuring that they are administered by the department responsible for the administration of justice, and in the interests of achieving a better service through economy of scale, we recommend that the administration of tribunals should become the responsibility of the Lord Chancellor. [3]
Appointments
2.32 Giving users real confidence that appeals are decided by people genuinely independent of departments, in the same way that the judges are, relies on more than independent arrangements for administrative support. There has been welcome progress towards greater consistency in appointments and tenure provisions. But in order to emphasise the independence of these important posts we recommend that it should go further. The same system should be responsible for making both judicial and tribunal appointments, and — in all relevant respects — they should be made in the same way. In current terms, that means the Lord Chancellor should assume responsibility for all appointments to tribunals which would otherwise be made by Westminster ministers (in consultation, as necessary, with other members of the UK Government or members of the devolved administrations).
Bill of Rights 1689 / Declaration of Rights 1689
Finally, it is Alan Parker’s claim that the levying of a Penalty Charge by Transport for London.
He has already submitted a copy of the Declaration of Rights 1689 27.
This Declaration was incorporated as a Parliamentary documents, the Bill of Rights 1689 28, and it is one of the basic documents of English Constitutional Law.
It is the claim of Alan Parker that:
The Declaration of Rights is NOT a Creature of Parliament and
unlike the Bill of Rights is NOT subject to alteration or regulation
by any Parliament –
That said, both state
“that all grants and promises of fines an forfeitures of particular persons before conviction are illegal and void.”
In 1913 in the case of Bowles v Bank of England it was ruled that the Bill
of Rights still stood, and the Crown could not justify any infringement of its provisions.
On 21 July 1993, the Speaker of The House of Commons issued a reminder to the courts. Betty Boothroyd said: ‘There has of course been no amendment to The Bill of Rights…the house is entitled to expect that The Bill of Rights will be fully respected by all those appearing before the courts.’
This was also re-affirmed in the case of Thoburn vs City of Sunderland (Supreme Court of Judicature 18th February 2002. Case Number CO/3308/2001) 29.
The decision commonly referred to as the "Metric Martyrs" Judgment was handed down in the Divisional Court by Lord Justice Laws and Mr Justice Crane:
Laws stated:62."We should recognise a hierarchy of Acts of Parliament: as it were 'ordinary' statutes and 'constitutional statutes.' The special status of constitutional statutes follows the special status of constitutional rights. Examples are the ... Bill of Rights 1689 ...63. Ordinary statutes may be impliedly repealed. Constitutional statutes may not…"This was upheld by Lords Bingham, Scott and Steyn in an appeal which went to the House of Lords on Monday, July 15 2002As neither the Road Traffic Act 1991 30. nor the Greater London Authority Act 1999 31 makes any express reference to repealing the necessary section of the Bill of Rights or the Declaration of Rights then Transport for London has no right to demand monies from me, and should refer this matter to a Court of Law in a proper and orderly fashion.
As we have heard, PATAS does not deal in precedents therefore it will not be necessary to rely on Townsend v Transport for London (Case Number 2050330626).32
As the evidence submitted today clearly shows, there is no ‘right of challenge to an independent body’ and therefore the citizen’s rights are not protected.
An application on this very point has been lodged for Judicial Review, 33 and it may be wise to await the outcome of that case.
With reference to this point in Richard Shakespeare’s Case Summary, the Administrative Court Reference is CO/10617/2005 and not CO/10617/2005.
With regard to Lord Justice Laws’ ‘constitutional statutes’ and the Metric Martyrs Judgment, the document from the House of Commons Library (rec. 29th July 2005) states:
“There was no appeal from the Divisional Court to the House of Lords in the Thoburn case, which means the judgment has legal effect. But under the principles of English common law, the judgment may be superseded by another judgment from the Divisional Court or the House of Lords.”
Perhaps this Judicial Review will lead to clarification as to whether all administrative fines and penalties fall or whether the Metric Martyrs were wrongly convicted.
Summary:
I think that the evidence laid before you today puts Alan Parker’s case beyond any reasonable doubt that he is in no way responsible for any Penalty Charge demanded from him by Transport for London.
I do believe that it will give PATAS some points to ponder.
We have shown flaws in the following:
· Transport for London’s Penalty Charge Notice
· The DVLAs V5C Document
· The professional competence of PATAS its adjudicators
· The financial connections between the boroughs, Transport for London and ALG TEC and PATAS
· We have shown administrative connections between the same
· We have shown connections between the policy makers and the adjudicators and established connections between enforcement agencies and both PATAS and NPAS
· We have submitted evidence challenging the independence and impartiality of PATAS and its failure to meet the requirements of Article 6(1) of the ECHR
· We have shown that there is a fundamental conflict with the Declaration and Bill of Rights
Finally, it is somewhat amusing to note that confusion still reigns even in the Case Summary.35
Richard Shakespeare, TfL Enforcement CSR states:
“The Adjudicator’s attention is brought to the fact that drivers have driven past clear signs on their entry into the zone warning them of this and that a charge should be paid”
As the driver, Mr. Decrittenden may or may not have noticed the signs. Mr. Parker, the registered keeper and the person responsible for paying the fine most certainly did not as he sat on his sofa watching Richard and Judy some 100 miles or so away.
Ladies and Gentlemen may be so bold as to state:… “The Game’s Up!”
Additional Notes, References and Information
http://www.alg.gov.uk/upload/public/attachments/715/aboutPATAS.pdf
PATAS 2003-4
By the ALG
http://www.alg.gov.uk/upload/public/attachments/352/TECA4PATAS04FINAL.pdf
Transport Services
The ALG’s Transport and Environment Committee (TEC) is responsible for delivering transport services to Londoners and the London boroughs.
http://www.alg.gov.uk/cat.asp?catId=2290
Road Traffic Act 1991
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/ACTS/acts1991/Ukpga_19910040_en_1.htm#tcon
Parking in London
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/ACTS/acts1991/Ukpga_19910040_en_3.htm#mdiv63
Appointment of parking adjudicators by joint committee of the London authorities.
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/ACTS/acts1991/Ukpga_19910040_en_3.htm#mdiv73
Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994 (c. 22)
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/ACTS/acts1994/Ukpga_19940022_en_1.htm
Owner Liability (PATAS)
http://www.parking-appeals.gov.uk/about/owner_liability.asp
Council on Tribunals
http://www.council-on-tribunals.gov.uk/contact.htm
Lavall v Hammersmith (Adjudicator and the Validity of the PCN)
http://www.patas.org.uk/ActivePublisher/img/upLoad/Parking_Adjudicators_Annual_Report_2004-2005.pdf
Contained in the Adjudicator’s reports 2004-5
Liberty and the Witham and De Haes and Van Gijsels v Belgium
http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/resources/policy-papers/policy-papers-2003/pdf-documents/asylum-legal-aid-aug-2003.pdf
The Association of London Government website states:
“The ALG TEC provides a number of frontline services to London’s residents on behalf of the London boroughs. These include Parking and Traffic Appeals, Parking Services
I could go on but I think that the direct funding relationship between Transport for London and PATAS has been clearly established.
Finally, I wish to introduce evidence that the Bill of Rights 1689 does not allow me to be fined except by a court of law. Transport for London is not a court of law, nor is this tribunal.
1991 Road Traffic Act http://www.opsi.gov.uk/ACTS/acts1991/Ukpga_19910040_en_1.htm#tcon
Parking and Traffic Appeals Service
http://www.patas.org.uk/
[2] Hourly rate paid to Adjudicators is £48.55; employers NIC’s @10% is £4.85, making an hourly cost to the ALG of £53.40.
[3] If the £0.68 unit cost had been inflated by 3% each year since 1996/97, the equivalent 2006/07 charge would be £0.94
[4] Based on cases closed and total adjudicator hours worked 1 April – 30 September 2005
posted by Neil Herron at 8:35 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home