Car cloning nightmare leaves bewildered driver with mystery fines

Ham & High
28 July 2006
Katie Davies

GETTING a parking ticket when you're not in the country may seem like the work of an over-zealous local authority.
But for one Hampstead man it was how he found out his car had been cloned.
Nigel Walker, 49, of Courthope Road, was on a business trip to Malaysia when a parking fine arrived at his home.
The ticket came from Ealing Council and Mr Walker presumed it was a mistake.
But eight weeks after contesting it, he discovered the licence plate on his Volvo had been copied.
He said: "I got a notice to owner saying I had to pay £100 or else. I was in Malaysia and my wife can't drive so how could we be in Ealing?
"I had never heard anything like this happening before. I told the police, who said they would put out a call for it, but that means they are going to keep stopping me as I drive around London. They said if that happens all I have to do is go to the police station with my papers but basically I will be treated as guilty. It's like Kafka."
If the police do not catch the other car, Mr Walker, who runs the fetish shop Liberation in Camden Town, could face more parking tickets and congestion charge fines - and worse.
Other drivers who have had their cars cloned have been caught up in investigations into crashes or hit and runs.
He added: "I have read websites with horror stories like one person who got parking fines worth £6,000. It is very worrying to think someone is running around with my number plate and I don't know what anyone is doing to counter it.
"But why should I have to re-register my vehicle? Why should I have to lose my money?
"I could be getting a threat from the bailiffs for someone else's crime. I find it quite alarming.
"The authorities expect you to prove your innocence but it's very hard to prove you weren't somewhere and now it is going to come up time and time again for me."
Ealing Council said: "We are sorry to hear what has happened to Mr Walker. We had no hesitation in waiving the fee once he wrote to us explaining his registration number had been copied."
katie.davies@hamhigh.co.uk
Cloning or ringing is often used on stolen cars and involves copying a registration mark from another vehicle.
Often copycats will use registration numbers spotted on cars of the same colour and model to further avoid detection.
The AA found there were 14,176 confirmed thefts of number plates in 2005.
One in 250 vehicles entering the congestion charge zone is thought to have false number plates.
Cloning allows criminals to avoid detection on motoring offences, including speeding, parking tickets and congestion charge fines.
It has also been used in armed robberies and petrol thefts.

Londoners to have their say in major parking consultation

24dash.com
Publisher: Jon LandPublished: 28/07/2006 - 15:16:21 PM

Londoners will be able to influence the levels of parking fines in the capital through a major consultation launched by the Association of London Government and Transport for London.
Over the next three months Londoners and other interested parties will be asked for their views on:
How much motorists should be fined for illegal parking, using bus lanes and committing moving traffic offences – including stopping in a yellow box junction and going through a no entry sign.
Whether a sliding scale of penalties should be introduced to separate out more serious parking offences from other acts of illegal parking.
If the new scale of charges was introduced which offences are more serious than others – for example should someone parking on a double yellow line at a busy junction be fined more than a driver overstaying a few minutes at a parking meter?
Chairman of the ALG's Transport and Environment Committee Councillor Daniel Moylan said: "People become very passionate about parking fines and this is their chance to have their say on what the levels of the penalties should be.
"We have no preconceived idea of what the levels of the fines should be. The only thing we must ensure is that the penalty is fixed at a level to deter the selfish motorists from parking illegally so that the law abiding motorists and other road users can enjoy a smooth and safe journey."
Robert Steer, TfL's Head of Traffic Enforcement Camera Operations, said: "All Londoners are affected by the actions of a small minority of drivers who do not adhere to the rules of the road by blocking red routes, bus lanes and yellow box junctions.
"We hope that Londoners take this opportunity to take part in this consultation."
As well as the London boroughs, other organisations being consulted include the Freight Transport Association, AA, RAC, Department for Transport, Friends of the Earth, London Ambulance Service, London Fire Brigade, London Cab Drivers Club, London Cycling Campaign and London Motorcycling working group.
The consultation will also seek views on the levels of the penalties for contraventions of the London Lorry Control Scheme and the cost of releasing vehicles from clamps and car pounds.
Anyone wanting to find out more about the consultation and to submit their views should go to alg.gov.uk/parkingconsultation.
The consultation ends on October 16 2006.
A final decision on any changes to the levels of the fines and the introduction of a sliding scale off offences will be made in December. Any changes would be introduced on April 1 2007.

Transport chiefs accused over clutter of parking zone signs

The Scotsman
BRIAN FERGUSON
CITY COUNCIL REPORTER
bferguson@edinburghnews.com bferguson@edinburghnews.com)

A LEADING heritage body has accused the council of turning city conservation areas into giant "car parks" by going overboard with signs promoting new parking zones.
The Cockburn Association warned places like Hillside, Marchmont and the Grange are being ruined by the number of signs being put up.

They say redundant poles in residential streets are being ignored in favour of a "plethora" of new ones and that the amount of street clutter is ruining the look of some of Edinburgh's most attractive suburbs.
City transport leaders have been asked to call a halt to the erection of further signs until talks are held with the association, which is also angry over the amount of lettering being painted on to road surfaces. Community leaders and councillors said even people who support the extension of Edinburgh's controlled parking zones are upset by the impact it is having on their streets.
The council is extending the zone where its wardens operate as part of the biggest shake-up of parking in the Capital since 1974. It wants to prevent commuters who park in residential areas then catch the bus to the city centre from clogging up streets.
The Evening News revealed in June how the new parking restrictions were being brought in across the city up to five months earlier than planned.
Pay-and-display machines and residents' parking bays will start operating in Hillside, Broughton, Marchmont and the Grange from September 1. A second phase of the £3 million scheme, featuring Marchmont and Inverleith, is expected to be up and running in January, with further areas joining by November next year.
The Cockburn Association supports the parking zone extension - which will see residents charged £80 a year to park outside their homes.
But director Moira Tasker said the group had been inundated with complaints about the placement and design of the signs supporting it. She said: "We are extremely concerned that the city council has not considered the visual impact caused by this plethora of signage in conservation areas. We are also concerned about accessibility issues posed by placing signs and poles on already narrow public pavements.
"We would like a moratorium on the installation of the CPZ signage and road markings before many of the city's most valued conservation areas end up resembling car parks."
Grange councillor Liz O'Malley said: "The council is supposed to be reducing street clutter across the city and this flies in the face of their policies on the issue.
"These are some of the most attractive areas of Edinburgh and it's a real shame that a lot of the goodwill about the parking zone extension is being lost because of this."
Andrew Holmes, the council's director of city development, insisted the council had been seeking permission from individual property owners to use their walls to erect signs. He added: "These signs are a legal requirement.
"Many of the roads in the areas surrounding the existing zone have, effectively, been turned into car parks in recent years reducing the quality of life for local residents.
"The introduction of parking controls in these conservation and other residential areas will reduce the number of cars parked on street by prioritising the needs of local people."

Last updated: 15-Aug-06 11:35 BST

Fines fiasco sidestepped

Richmond and Twickenham Times
By Chris Wickham

The council has been told to change its documents to prevent a cash windfall for drivers after a landmark legal challenge made many parking tickets illegitimate.
Richmond upon Thames Council was confronted with the possibility that residents may not have to pay fines and could even claim refunds following the ruling which could have left it thousands of pounds out of pocket.
A Twickenham man, who did not wish to be named, uncovered documents and legal rulings which stated that the paperwork issued when a parking fine is imposed is invalid.

Across the country residents are being let off their parking fines, while one council is now in the process of repaying money claimed because of documents that are not legally valid.
But the council has reacted by updating its documentation and now maintains that it is completely compliant with parking legislation.
The crucial ruling which may have left residents quids-in was made by the National Parking Adjudication Service, (NPAS), which considers parking appeals, in May when it decided that a ticket issued to a driver by Aylesbury Vale District Council was wrong and therefore should not be paid.
It said that the Notice to Owner (NtO) document, which is sent to anyone who does not pay their parking ticket within 28 days of its issue, did not conform with the Road Traffic Act 1991, the legislation under which the tickets are given.
The NtO document stated that the recipient has 28 days to pay the fine from the date the notice was served, but featured a payment date which is 28 days from the date of issue, not allowing time for the notice to be posted.
The adjudicator deemed that by threatening to increase the payment after less than 28 days, the council did not comply with the law, thus invalidating the ticket.
The Twickenham resident said that Richmond council has been issuing notices on the same basis, which he said meant they have no legal standing, and claimed that anyone who receives this NtO can appeal against its issue.
A further adjudication by the Parking and Traffic Appeals Services (PATAS), who deal with appeals in London, quoted the decision made by NPAS and stated that another NtO given to driver called Mark Grosskopf was invalid for the same reasons.
Sunderland City Council' s cabinet has agreed to refund money that was incorrectly claimed from drivers because of incorrect parking ticket documentation and our informant appealed for Richmond council to do the same.
He said: "I do not think that in all conscience it can merely ignore the financial hardship that it has visited on so many people as a result of its own failure to ensure that such vital pieces of documentation have been properly prepared."
But although the council admitted that when the documents were obtained by the Twickenham resident they may not have been watertight there was now no risk they were illegitimate.
A spokesman said: "We are aware of the decision by the National Parking Adjudication Service.
"The Association for London Government and PATAS, the parking adjudication service for the capital, has advised London local authorities to check and amend their documents accordingly.
"Penalty charge notices in this borough were substantially compliant with legislation and have now been updated to become literally compliant.
"We are not aware of any penalty charge notices issued in Richmond upon Thames affected by this ruling.
"However, should such a scenario arise, it will be dealt with through the proper procedures on a case-by-case basis."

Motorists could get parking fine refund

Landmark legal ruling on tickets
Leeds Today
By Tony Gardner

THOUSANDS of Leeds motorists could be entitled to have parking fines cash returned following a landmark legal ruling.
Leeds City Council looks set to fall foul of a High Court decision which could invalidate all parking tickets handed out across the city.
Highways bosses in Leeds had been nervously awaiting the outcome of a judicial review into a case involving Barnet Council in London.
Mr Justice Jackson ruled that Barnet's parking tickets were invalid as they did not have two dates on them, one stating a date of the parking contravention and the other a date of when the ticket was issued.
The implications of the decision could create a "financial catastrophe" for Leeds City Council, who face losing millions in lost revenue.
In the case of Hugh Moses v Barnet, Mr Moses challenged the validity of Barnet Council's parking tickets on the grounds that they did not have a date of issue.
Floodgates
Two separate parking adjudicators agreed that Barnet Council's parking tickets were invalid.
Barnet took the matter to the High Court and challenged the decisions.
The test case decision by the judge ruled that Barnet's parking tickets were invalid as they did not have two dates on them, one a date of contravention and the other a date of issue.
The judge also said that any parking ticket needs those two dates to be valid.
Barrie Segal, of AppealNow. com, a pressure group which campaigns for fair parking laws in the UK, said the decision could open the floodgates in many local authority areas, including Leeds, for people to contest fines. He said: "This is a stunning victory for motorists who have had to put for years with arrogant councils whose parking tickets were invalid.
"This legal precedent also in my view opens up a huge problems for councils all over the UK."
"Parking tickets have to comply with a strict legal requirement. Under the Road Traffic Act 1991 the date of issue, among other things, must be shown on the parking ticket. In the Barnet and other cases it was not."
Mr Segal, who represented Mr Moses in the High Court case, added: "Leeds City Council is one of the authorities I contacted ages ago to tell them that their parking tickets are unlawful. Perhaps now they might listen."

CLAIM: Mr Finister and Jordan
In June the YEP told how Ashley Finister, the father of 12-year-old Jordan suffering from a rare incurable brain condition was taking on the council, claiming that eight tickets issued were not lawful as only one date was included on the ticket.
Appeal
The council is refusing to back down over its demands for £480 and the case is due to go an appeal hearing. The hearing is one of countless cases across the country to be adjourned by the National Parking Adjudication Service pending the outcome of the Moses v Barnet case.
A spokesman for Leeds City council said they were unable to comment until they had received a full written judgment from the High Court.
tony.gardner@ypn.co.uk
11 August 2006

Businessman uses blow-up dolls in parking fines protest

The Argus
9th August 06

Traffic wardens are often the bane of people's lives but for one plumbing and heating firm they just won't go away.
Mike Gurney, 48, who runs Glowzone, a plumbing and heating company based in Beaconsfield Road, Brighton, has spent the past five years battling Brighton and Hove City Council because he claims parking tickets and charge certificates he has received are invalid.
He said the wardens ticket his eight vans and pass his shop so frequently he decided to dress blow-up dolls in traffic warden uniforms and place them in his shop window to scare them off. The tactic seems to have done the trick but Mr Gurney's fight with the council to withdraw fines totalling more than £11,000 is ongoing.
He is arguing that the wording on the parking tickets and the charge certificates is wrong, making them invalid. He has already paid £5,000 in fines and spent £12,000 in solicitors' fees in his fight against the council.
The council is also attempting to push Glowzone into liquidation to recoup the growing fines ñ which the company has collected as its fleet of vans respond to emergency jobs.
Mr Gurney has asked for permits for his vehicles and for the council to make allowances when there is no adequate parking while his employees are on an emergency job but he was only offered two permits even though he has eight vans.
He said: "We never used to see the wardens but now they are coming up four or five times a day. You should have seen their faces when they saw the dolls all squeezed in the window.
"If the council had been fair from day one none of this would have happened."
Sutton Solicitors, acting for Mr Gurney, has given the council until today to respond to a letter saying the tickets are not valid and to withdraw a statutory demand on the company which could lead to it being wound up in the High Court.
A spokeswoman for the council said: "The council is in talks with Glowzone's solicitors and we don't want to get drawn into discussing the case in the Press.
"If, once discussions are over, they still believe they have the legal grounds to pursue their complaint they should take it to the National Parking Adjudication Service instead of to the media."

City U-turn as parking tickets reworded after legal threat

The Scotsman
ALAN RODEN TRANSPORT REPORTER

THE city council has altered the wording on its parking tickets in the wake of a planned court action by campaigners who claim the tickets are not valid.
Barrie Segal, a leading campaigner who has successfully overturned parking fines in four London boroughs, claimed earlier this year fines being issued in Edinburgh were invalid because of a missing detail.

He is still hoping to mount a test case to prove this, which could open the floodgates for thousands of penalties being cancelled or refunded.
Despite insisting just two months ago that the wording on its tickets complied with legislation, city chiefs have now taken steps to alter the tickets - and block any future challenges. They claimed today the decision was made following the Evening News story two months ago highlighting Mr Segal's findings, which they fear might have given rise to "copy-cat" appeals.
The Road Traffic Act 1991 says parking tickets must carry the date the offence was committed and the date the fine was issued, even if - as tends to be the norm - they fall on the same day.
The tickets in the four London boroughs - as well as Bury and Sunderland - have been overturned because they did not carry the "date of issue".
Until recently there was no specific reference to this date on Edinburgh parking tickets, but it has now been added.
Mr Segal, who runs the appealnow.com website, said:
"I know Edinburgh have changed their parking tickets since I raised the issue, and I think it's now quite clear they were wrong in the first place."
One city resident is now determined to test the council's resolve when it comes to parking fine appeals. Suzanne Robertson, a 25-year-old advertising executive from Morningside, said she was taking her stance to "fight for the rights of motorists".
She has appealed five penalty notices to the council on the grounds that they were invalid.
So far, the city council has cancelled two of the tickets, preventing Ms Robertson - who is being helped by Mr Segal - from taking her challenge to an independent parking adjudicator.
"They didn't give a reason for successfully granting my appeal, which was a bit strange, so they must have realised they were invalid," she said.
"If they had admitted to the problem at this stage, it would have opened the floodgates."
If a test case at the Scottish Parking Appeals Service is successful, there is no definite guarantee all other outstanding tickets will be cancelled - but there have been successful follow-up appeals in London.
However, motorists who have already paid parking fines will not be able to get their money back, because they have accepted breaking the regulations.
Andrew Holmes, director of city development, said today: "We believe the date on our parking tickets was clear to motorists and it was never found to be non-compliant.
"We changed our tickets as we anticipated a rash of copy-cat cases; these failed to materialise but they could have cost taxpayers in staff time and money for legal fees."
Last updated: 04-Aug-06 11:58 BST