Parking Appeals

Fleetm8 ... Vehicle Tracking System

2008-07-03T04:53:00.000-07:00

For the latest in vehicle tracking checkout Fleetm8 at http://www.em8.eu/

Mayor's Tax Disc Gaffe ... Another Fine Mess in Blackburn

2008-02-14T23:49:00.000-08:00

The Lancashire Evening Telegraph reports on the latest Blackburn blunder, this time involving 'failure to display.'
Everyone in Blackburn in future who gets a Parking Ticket for a similar mistake simply print off the article and ask for the council to apply discretion.

Tax disc gaffe on mayor's limo
By Nafeesa Shan

PARKING protesters have accused council bosses of double standards after they forgot to replace the tax disc on the mayor's limousine.
The tax disc on the black BMW expired on January 31 and was replaced for 12 days until the Lancashire Telegraph informed Blackburn with Darwen Council that it had expired.
The car which has a registration CB1, used on official visits by the Mayor of Blackburn with Darwen Coun Maureen McGarvey, was driven on at least 11 occasions without displaying the correct disc. More ...

Medway Council 'Offensive' Notice to Owner ...

2008-02-11T05:10:00.000-08:00

To the untrained eye this looks like a legal document compliant with the 1991 Road Traffic Act.

However, Scedule 6 of the 1991 Road Traffic Act details exactly what a Notice to Owner MUST state ... and the word is 'contravention' not 'offence.'

Crown Prosecution Service:Definition of Misfeasance

2007-09-28T02:52:00.000-07:00

Here

Letter to Sunderland City Council Chief Executive 28th September 2007:

2007-09-28T02:39:00.000-07:00

Ged Fitzgerald
Chief Executive
Sunderland City Council
Civic Centre
Sunderland
SR2 7DN

28th September 2007

Dear Mr. Fitzgerald,

As a matter of urgency I wish to bring the following to your attention and require a response as a matter of urgency:

The Loading Bays in Sea Road, Sunderland are unlawful and dangerous, with the markings placed on the highway by Sunderland City Council actually enticing drivers into illegal bays to commit a criminal offence.

Loading Bays to Diagram 1028 series MUST be a minimum of 2.7m wide
The 'Loading Only' legend MUST be on the outside of the bay.
the zig zag restriction runs 'edgeback to edgeback' therefore the council are actually
inciting motorists to commit a criminal offence by parking in the zigzags, behind the zig zags or overhanging the zig zags.

the serious safety issues arise from restricted visibility for motorists and pedestrians alike caused by vehicles parked in the unlawfully marked, illegal loading bay.

As well as the fundamental safety issue the fact is that these bays are not legal and therefore no-one can have been legally fined. The monies must be refunded as Sunderland City Council's accounts once again contain unlawfully derived income. This is not an instance where there is 'ambiguity' over the signing which a motorist can raise as a defence.This is not an instance where signs have been 'poorly maintained or vandalised.'

The e-mail from John Munns at the TM1 Division in the DfT in response to the photographs contained in the attached Sea Road Composite is also attached but an extract of his response to the specific question as to whether the bays shown in the attached photographs have special authorisation or comply with the legal requirements is shown below:

"The combination of these regulations is not always obvious but we now understand that the zig zag should always follow the kerb-line including into any bays . Loading bays minimum width in TSRGD is 2.7m - unless it conform entirely to diagram 1032 in TSRGD. The Signs regulations always have the "loading only" legend outside the bay - authorised exceptions are very , very, raree (sic).

If Councillor Lawson and the Cabinet continue to endorse what is clearly illegal (and this is not just an isolated instance ... the National Parking Adjudication Service, the DfT are sitting on thousands of pages of evidence and you have also been supplied with a copy of an expert witnesses' report on Sunderland from Richard Bentley a former Police Officer and accredited independent expert witness) then I wish this to be placed on the record and in the public domain so that Sunderland City Council Officers and elected members cannot claim that they didn't know, should a serious accident occur.

As for the continued claim that the regime is 'legal'robust and enforceable' on Sunday morning 23rd September 2007 I witnessed two council officials remarking areas of highway in Prince Street (Disabled Bays now marked to TSRGD Diagram 1032 from the unlawful 1028.4); Central Area Development (now double yellow lines over white cross hatch where previously no double yellows) and Cumberland Street (Loading 'Bay' remarked to Loading 'Only').

Far from being 'ongoing maintenance' these corrections to unlawful signs were the creation of NEW signs and were brought to Sunderland City Council's attention as a direct result of my evidence submission provided to the NPAS tribunal on 12th September 2007 before adjudicator Andrew Keenan.

To keep correcting or altering evidence placed before your officers and NPAS whilst defending the DPE regime as legal, robust and enforceable is perverse to say the least. However, fortunately PC 8126 Peterson witnessed the council workers amending the evidence and the signs and took their names and confirmed that he has recorded the incident. It will be my intention to call him as a witness in future proceedings and I have photographic evidence to support this which will be provided to the tribunal and to the courts.

Sea Road is an accident waiting to happen (as are many other locations in the City) and it is this level of absolute incompetence and reckless indifference to the law and public safety that will be seen by the courts, and hopefully at some point in this sorry state of affairs by the elected members, as gross negligence at best and misfeasance, indeed malfeasance in public office and perhaps fraud including attempting to obtain money by deception.

I have copied this series of e-mails in to Councillor Lawson and other council officers to avoid any claim that they were unaware of what could be seen as, should there be a serious accident or fatality at this location, absolute negligence by Sunderland City Council leaving them and individual officers and councillors wide open for a massive damages claim.

Even for the uninitiated, putting loading bays behind the zigzags of a crossing is a stupid thing to do. For highly paid and supposedly well qualified council engineers to be actioning and endorsing this in light of all the guidance available from the Department for Transport and the Government Office beggars belief and questions regarding professional competence should be investigated as a matter of urgency.

As a courtesy I have copied this e-mail to parties referred to in the text as well as other interested parties.

My contact details are below should you wish to discuss matters further and I would be grateful for an acknowledgement of this e-mail by return and explicit details of what your intended course of action will be.

May I humbly suggest that the time has come for Sunderland City Council to voluntarily request the intervention by the Department for Transport to sort out what may be best be described as an absolute shambles in the politest possible terms. It may well be that this course of action is more prudent than having the Secretary of State and the DfT put in a position where they are forced to intervene.

Yours sincerely,

Neil Herron

39 The Westlands
Sunderland
SR4 7RP

Tel. 0191 565 7143
Mob. 07776 202045

cc. Ged Fitzgerald, Chief Executive, Sunderland City Council
cc. Bob Rayner, City Solicitor
cc. Keith Beardmore, City Treasurer
cc. Phil Barrett, Director of Development and Regeneration
cc. Development and Regeneration Link Officer
cc. Councillor Bob Symonds, Leader of the Council
cc. Councillor Joseph Lawson

cc. Chris Mullin MP (Sunderland South)
cc. John Munns DfT
cc. Martin Gibson GONE
cc. Richard Bentley, RMB Consulting
cc. Chief Inspector John Lingwood, Northumbria Police

cc. Chris Stewart Chief Reporter BBC Look North
cc. Dave Morrison Producer BBC Inside Out

cc. Kevin Clark, Marissa Carruthers, Ross Robertson Sunderland Echo
cc. Paul James Newcastle Journal
cc. Newsdesk, Sun FM
cc. Peter Young, Evening Chronicle

Holmeside Loading Bays ... 2m is not legal say Department for Transport

2006-12-05T12:42:00.000-08:00

Remember, Sunderland claimed that they identified the wrongly maarked bays in the January 2006 Review.

They were not altered until November 2006.

The Police van picture highlights how, even to the layman, it is obvious that this bay cannot be legal as you cannot even fit a vehicle in to it!!

The bays have now been altered ... to 2m wide.

Holmeside is a fatality waiting to happen.

This is just the tip of the iceberg.

There is a lot more to be revealed

Isaacson v Bury

2006-10-30T05:46:00.000-08:00

Imperial Traffic Regulation Orders ... Coronation Street, Sunderland

2006-10-30T05:37:00.000-08:00

Davies v Heatley Lord

2006-10-24T14:55:00.000-07:00

4 FEBRUARY 1971

QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION

DAVIES v HEATLEYLORD

PARKER CJ, MELFORD STEVENSON and COOKE JJ

Traffic sign

—Road marking

—Sign not complying with regulations

—Intermittent white line between two continuous while lines not prescribed distance apart

—Whether'prescribed' sign

—Failure to comply with indication

—Whether offence

—RoadTrafficAct 1960s 14(1)—Road Traffic Regulation Act J967 s 54(2)—-Traffic SignsRegulationsand General Directions 1964 reg 23(1)(2)(, diagram 1013 (as amended byTrafficSigns (Amendment) Regulations 1966).Section 14(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1960 provides:'Where . . . a traffic sign, being a sign of the prescribed size, colour andtype . . , hasbeen lawfully placed on or near a road. a person driving ... a vehicle who... ( fails tocompty with the indication given by the sign, shall be liable' [to penalty],Section 54(2) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1967 provides:'Traffic signs shall be of the size, colour and type prescribed byregulations . . .'Regulation 23 of theTrafiic Signs Regulations and General Directions 1964(as amended)provides:'(1) A road marking for conveying the requirements specified in the nextsucceedingparagraph ... shall be of the size and type shown in diagram 1013. (2) Therequirementsconveyed ... shall be . . . ( ... every vehicle . . . shall be so driven asto keep the ...'line on the right hand . . . side of the vehicle.'Diagram 1013 provides:'...Longitudinal lines to indicate ... the requirements... prescribed byregulation 23(2)...(See Direction 5A)'.A bend in a road bore a traffic marking consisting of continuous doublewhite lines andbetween them the remains of an intermittent white line with which the roadhad previouslybeen marked; the distance between the continuous double white lines differedfrom thedistance prescribed by diagram 1013 and regulation 23(1) of the TrafficSigns Regulationsand General Directions 1964, as amended by the Traffic Signs (Amendment)Regulations1966 and section 54(2) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1967. Thedefendant, whodrove a motor vehicle at the bend, did not keep to the left of the marking,and he wascharged with contravening section 14(1) (A) of the Road Traffic Act 1960 byfailing tocomply with the indication given by a traffic sign. The justices were ofopinion that thedefendant was left in no doubt as to the nature of the sign and that,although it did notstrictly comply with the regulations, it was clearly visible andrecognisable and, therefore,binding on him, and they convicted him.On appeal against conviction :Held, allowing the appeal, that the scheme of the legislation confined theoffence tofailure to comply with the prescribed sign (p 148E); and that, since thetraffic markingdid not conform strictly to the sign as prescribed by the regulation, nooffence had beencommitted, and the conviction would be quashed.Cases referred to in the judgment:James v Cavey [1967] 2 QB 676: [1967] 2 WLR 1239; [1967] 1 All EH 1048.DCPower v Davidson (1964) 62 LGR 320. DCReg. v Priest [1961] OWN 166Additional case cited in argument: 'MacLeod v Hamilton. 1965 SLT 305Case stated by Glamorgan Justices sitting at PontardaweOn 30 April 1970 an information was preferred by the prosecutor, IvorHeatley, against thedefendant, Charles Russel Davies, that he, on 9 March 1970 at Lianguicke inGlamorganbeing the person driving a vehicle, namely Morris motor lorry, registrationnumber190 DWN on a road, at Gelligron Hill. Pontardawe. did fail to comply withthe indicationgiven by a traffic sign, namely, did fail to keep to the left of acontinuous while line placedon the left of a continuous while line, contrary to section 14 of the RoadTraffic Act 1960.The defendant pleaded not guilty.The justices heard the information on 29 May 1970 and found the followingfacts.At 3.40 pm on Monday 9 March 1970 Brian Williams, a police constable of theSouthWales constabulary was on Panda patrol duty in Gelligron Road, Pontardawe,andtravelling down a hill in the direction of traffic lights. Proceeding infront of the constablewere two heavily laden motor lorries travelling at a very slow speed. As aright-handbend was being negotiated the constable saw the vehicle directly in front ofhim,Morris motor lorry registration number 190 DWN, pull out to its offside ofthe road, andin doing so cross continuous double white lines placed in the centre of theroad. Thevehicle then accelerated past the front lorry. Motor lorry registrationnumber 190 DWNwas stopped, and the constable spoke to ihe driver, the defendant, and toldhim that itwas an offence to cross double continuous white lines placed on a road.Whanasked foran explanation the defendant made no reply. When told that he would bereported bythe constable for the consideration of the question of proceedings beingtaken againstthe defendant for failing to conform to a traffic sign he, after caution,made no reply.The traffic sign in question was as shown in a photograph produced to thecourt andexhibited to the case and consisted of two continuous white lines with anintermittentwhite line in the centre. The sign was placed on the road at sometime in1970, and theconstable confirmed In evidence that the photograph showed the sign as itexisted on thedate of the alleged offence.It was contended by the defendant that there was no case for him to answerin so faras no offence in law had been committed as the traffic sign in question wasnot a lawfulsign within the meaning of section 54 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act1967, and asprescribed by the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 1964.The Justices were referred to the following cases:MacLeod v Hamilton. 1965 SLT 305Miners v Gillard [1950] WN 347.DCReg v Priest [1961] OWN 166On a case to answer being found the defendant elected to give evidence andstated that,as he was proceeding down the hill, around bends, he saw certain roadmarkings on theroad, namely, continuous while lines with an intermittentwhite line in the centre of same.He stated that he may have crossed the lines but thought he had not,The justices were of opinion that the defendant was left in no doubt as tothe nature ofthe sign in question; and that though the sign did not strictly comply withthe Regulationsin so far as there was an intermittent white line placed between twocontinuous whitelines, the sign, which was situated on an 'S' bend, was clearly visible andrecognisableand therefore, binding on the defendant. They accordingly, convicted thedefendantand he was was fined £10, his licence was endorsed, and he was ordered topay 10s costs.The defendantdant appealed.The question for the opinion of the court was whether, in view of thejustices' findingthat the defendant fully appreciated the nature of the sign in question,they were correctin law to decide that the intermittent white line between the continuouswhite linesdid not affect the validity of the sign.Anthony Kenny for the defendantB R Oliver the prosecutorLord Parker CJ This is an appeal by way of case stated from a decisionof Glamorgan Justices sitting at Pontardawe, whereby they convicted thedefendant of an offence contrary to section 14 of the Road Traffic Act 1960,in that he did fail to comply with the indication given by a traffic sign,namely, that he failed to keep to the left of a continuous white line placedon the left of a continuous white line. There was evidence from tha policethat, on a bend in the road where there were two white lines, the defendantdriving a heavily laden motor lorry went over the double white line in orderto pass a slower moving lorry in front of him. Although, after the rejectionof a submission of no case, the defendant did not admit that he had crossedthe double white line, it is quite clear that, if nothing more was said,this isa plain case for a conviction.However, the matter does not end there, because the point taken before thejustices and before this court is that the double white line in this casedidnot conform to the type of white line laid down by the legislation. A photo-graph is attached to the case which shows quite clearly that between thedouble white fines there is an old intermittent line, in other words itseemspretty certain that at one time on this bend there was the ordinaryintermittentwhite line, but a time came when, as it were. superimposed on thatand on either side of it were put these double white lines. The justicesexpressed their view, a view with which I have every sympathy, and onewhich could be said to be a common sense view, as follows:'We were of opinion that the defendant was left in no doubt as to the natureof the signin question; and that though the sign did not strictly comply with theRegulations inso far as there was an intermittent white line placed between two continuouswhiteline, the sign, which was situated on an \"S\" bend, was clearly visible andrecognisableand, therefore, binding on the defendant'.I have come to the conclusion, though with some reluctance, that thejUstices were wrong. The legislation in question makes it abundantly clearthat there must be strict conformity with the traffic signs which are pre-cribed. One begins with section 14(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1960, whichprovides, so far as it is material:Where...a traffic sign, being a sign of the prescribed size, colour and type. . has beenlawfully placed on or near a road. a person driving or propelling a vehiclewho—(a) neglectsor refuses to stop the vehicle or to make it proceed in, or keep to, aparlicular lineof traffic when directed so to do by the police constable in the executionof his duty, or( fails to comply with the indication given by the sign, shall be liable onsummaryconviction . ..'to a penalty.The Road Traffic Regulation Act 1967 further provides by section 54(2):'Traffic signs shall be of the size. colour and type prescribed byregulations made asaforesaid\".The regulations in question here are the Traffic Signs Regulations andGeneral Directions 1964. Regulation 23(1) of those regulations provides:'A road marking for conveying the requirements specified in the nextsucceedingparagraph...shall be of the size and type shown in diagram 1013',and though it is unnecessary to read it, regulation 23(2)(6) deals, amongother matters, with signs of the type in question here, namely, the doublewhite line. When one turns to diagram 1013, one finds laid down themarkings, with which we are all familiar, of the double white line, and itprovides what the width of each double white line should be and thedistance between them. It is only necessary to add that the distancebetween them was in fact varied by the Traffic Signs (Amendment)Regulations 1966. Accordingly, as it seems to me, the scheme of thelegislation here is to confine the offence to a case where there has beenfailure to comply with the prescribed sign.One asks, therefore, here whether this was the prescribed sign. I thouahtat one point that it might be said that the old intermittent line, on asensibleapproach, forms no part of the double white line sign, that it is old and itisjust not completely rubbed out, but, as was pointed out, even if oneassumed that it was subtracted and formed no part of the line itself, thedistance between the two continuous white lines is a long way differentfrom that prescribed by the regulations. Accordingly, as it seems to me,and apart from authority, much as one sympathises with the approach ofthe justices, it is impossible to say that an offence was committed.The court has been referred to a number of authorities, incuding — and Ifind it unnecessary to refer to them — James v Cavey [1967] 2 QB 676 andPower v Davidson (1964) 62 LGR 320, cases which were analogous in thissense, that it was held in each case that there was no offence of the typethere alleged unless there had been complete compliance with theregulations.Indeed, the only case to which the court has been referred, and speakingfor myself I am grateful for Mr Kenny's researches, which goes the otherway is Reg. v Priest in Ontario, Canada [1961] OWN 166. It was a casein the Court of Appeal, and Roach J in giving the judgment of the courtsaid, at p 168:'On the other hand. a top sign that complies, though not strictly but sosubstantiallywith the regulations as reasonably to indicate that it is authoritative anderected by thecompetent authority in intended compliance with its power under the Act, inmy opinionis equally binding on the driver, provided that he could have seen it if hewas keepinga proper look out\".It is, however, to be observed there that the scheme of the legislation wassubstantially different. The Act in that case, the Highway Traffic ActR.S.O,1960, c. 172, provided that a driver on approaching a stop sign at anintersection, 'shall bring the car or vehicle to a full stop...', and thentheAct went on to provide that the lieutenant governor in council may makeregulations providing for the erection of signs on any highways andprescribing the type of signs to be erected and the location of each typeof sign. One sees at ones that the Act did not make it an offence to fail tocomply with a 'prescribed stop sign', but only with a stop sign. It seems tome that under that scheme of legislation it was permissible to take theview that the Court of Appeal took there and the justices took in thepresentcase.Under the scheme of legislation, however, with which we are concerned,I see no escape from saying that here no offence was committed, andaccordingly I would allow the appeal and quash the conviction.Melford Stevenson J I agree.Cooke J I also agree.Appeal allowed with coatsConviction quashedSolicitors for the defendants: Tuck & Mann & Geffen S T D Jones S Co forPrice Williams & Partners. LlandeiloSolicitors for the prosecutor: Sharpe, Pritchard & Co for R H C Rowlands.GlamorganReported by Mrs Celia Fox Barrister-at-Law___________________________________________________________________MacLeod v. HamiltonHigh Court of JusticiaryHCJ Appeal(The Lord Justice-General(Clyde), Lords Carmont and Migdale)25 June 1965Article 7 of the Edinburgh Corporation (Tollcross Area -- Various Streets)Traffic Order, 1964, made under section 26 (2) of the Road Traffic Act,1960, provided that no person should cause or permit any vehicle to wait inthe streets specified in the Fifth Schedule in the Order between certainhours on certain days. Section 26 (7) of the Road Traffic Act, 1960,provides that a person who uses a vehicle in contravention of a trafficregulation order shall be liable to certain penalties. Section 29 (2) of theRoad Traffic Act, 1960, provides that where a traffic regulation order ismade by the local authority the local authority shall publish in such manneras may be prescribed by regulations made by the appropriate minister noticeof the making and effect of the order. Regulation 15 of the TrafficRegulations Orders (Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations, 1961, provided, interalia, that after an order had been made by a council, the council shouldtake all steps which were reasonably practicable to erect traffic signs onor near the roads affected by the order. A motorist left her motor car in astreet subject to the provisions of the Edinburgh Corporation Traffic Order,1964, for a period of twenty minutes at a time when no waiting was allowed.Edinburgh Corporation had erected signs in the street which did not conformto the requirements of section 51 of the 1960 Act.Held, that the Edinburgh Corporation Traffic Order, 1964, was not valid astraffic signs complying with the requirements of section 51 of the 1960 Acthad not been erected by the Corporation and, accordingly, that no offencehad been committed.Stated CaseMary Elizabeth Hamilton was charged in the Sheriff Court of theLothians and Peebles at Edinburgh at the instance of Angus MacLeod,Procurator-Fiscal, Edinburgh, upon a complaint on 12th November 1964,between the hours 8 a.m. and 6 p.m. in High Riggs she caused permitted avehicle 9016 SC to wait; contrary to article (7) of the EdinburghCorporation (Tollcross Area -- Various Streets) Traffic Order, 1964, madeunder sections 26 and 27 of the Road Traffic 1960, and to section 26 (7) ofthe said Act.The accused pleaded not guilty and evidence was led.On 6th April 1965, the Sheriff-Substitute (Cohen) found the accused notguilty.The sheriff-substitute appended the following note:--It was argued for the complainer, in the first place, that, since theoffence consisted in a contravention of an order, and not merely in failureto obey a traffic sign, as for example under section 14 of the Road TrafficAct, 1960, the question whether a sign conformed to a particular design oreven whether a sign had been erected, was immaterial. This argument, ifpressed to its logical conclusion, and the complainer did not shrink from socontending, would mean that even if there were no signs at all in theTollcross area, nonetheless, any motorist who allowed his car to wait there(unless he could bring himself within one of the excepted categories) couldbe successfully prosecuted for a contravention of the order although he wastotally unaware of the existence of the order. The implications of this arenot, however, confined to the Tollcross area; a similar situation wouldarise wherever a council, having made an order, then failed to erect anysigns. The prospect for a considerable proportion of the citizens of thiscountry would be indeed alarming, since unless they had read on oneparticular day the notice inserted in a local newspaper or in the EdinburghGazette in terms of Regulation 15 of the Statutory Instrument No. 669 of1961, they would be committing an offence of which they knew nothing. Inshort, the question comes to be whether mens rea is essential to acontravention of the present order.The law regarding mens rea in relation to a statutory offence was stated byLord Normand in Mitchell v. Morrison, 1938 J.C. 64, at page 71 (1938 S.L.T.201)in these terms: \"We are dealing with a statutory offence, not with acommon law crime, and there is no novelty in holding that a statutoryoffence may be committed although there is a complete absence of mens rea.Nevertheless, the burden lies on the Crown of showing that a statute imposesan absolute obligation, breach of which constitutes an offence and subjectsto a penalty one who is entirely free from all moral culpability... .Yet theCrown must always show that the language of the statute is, withoutdistortion or strain, habile to impose an absolute obligation.\" The presentorder was made by Edinburgh Corporation by virtue of regulations made by theSecretary of State and set forth in Statutory Instrument No. 669 of 1961.Regulation 15 © sets out the steps which a council shall take \"forthwith\"to erect signs. If the complainer's contention that no signs are necessaryis sound then this part of the regulation can amount to little more than apious hope that the council will do so. I do not think the regulation shouldbe interpreted in that way and, in my opinion, the regulation simply meanswhat it says, namely, that adequate information is to be given to personsusing the road and that is to be done by the erection of signs. This isquite the opposite to an absolute obligation and I think the Crown hasfailed to show that the words used in the regulation are habile to imposesuch an obligation.It was next maintained for the complainer that, even if the erection ofsigns was a necessary prerequisite to a contravention of the order, then thesigns (productions Nos. 7 and were sufficient, because, since this was notan area which had been created in virtue of an order made by the Secretaryof State, the provisions of section 51 of the Road Traffic Act, 1960, whichrelate to traffic signs, did apply to the Tollcross area. Accordingly, no*306 obligation was laid upon the Corporation to erect the type of signs setout in the regulations which the Secretary of State has made under thepowers granted to him by section 51 or by section 48 of the Road TrafficAct, 1930, now repealed.I have already referred to Regulation 15 of the Statutory Instrument No.669. I do not think that the word \"requisite\" as it is used insub-paragraph © refers to the type of signs to be erected, it seems to me torefer to the positions in which the signs are to be placed. Therefore, thediscretion which is given to a council by the use of the words \"considersrequisite\" does not extend to signs. The complainer does not, therefore,obtain any support from Regulation 15. Section 51 of the 1960 Act definesthe words \"traffic signs\". As I read this section it does not apply onlyto traffic signs which have been erected under an order made by theSecretary of State. The section appears to me to give the Secretary of Statepower to make regulations specifying any object (traffic sign) for conveyingto traffic warnings, information, etc. The section is not restricted toenabling the Secretary of State to make regulations specifying restrictionsor prohibitions, he already has those powers by virtue of other sections inthe Act. The Secretary of State has in fact made regulations which specifyin some detail the type of sign which may be erected. These regulations areto be found in Statutory Instrument No. 13 of 1957 as amended by Nos. 2149and 2150 of the same year. Regulation 8 in No. 13 deals in sub-paragraph ©with what may be described as \"prohibitory\" signs. There is nothing inRegulation 8 which suggests that it is to apply only to signs erected wherethe Secretary of State has made the order, nor does Part III of the FirstSchedule, where the various signs are set out in diagrams. Direction threeof No. 13 only permitted signs of the type illustrated in Part III to beerected at sites approved in writing by the Secretary of State, but this wassoon amended by No. 2150, the effect of which was to permit certain signs inPart III to be placed at sites without the approval in writing of theSecretary of State provided that they were not placed there to indicate theeffect of an order made by him. This in fact seems to envisage the kind ofsituation which has arisen in the present case because this is not an areain regard to which the Secretary of State has made an order. But there isnothing in any of the foregoing regulations which says that a council, orindeed any other body at all, has a discretion to erect any kind of signthey wish. It therefore seems to me that the words \"every traffic sign\"inRegulation 8 mean that unless an exception can be found every sign mustcomply with the requirements specified. I can find no such exception.Regulation 9 of No. 13 allows, what are described as, \"permittedvariants\"on certain signs. At the very best for the complainer onlysub-paragraphs (a) and ( could possibly be said to apply to the signs atHigh Riggs. Sub-paragraph (a) however, refers to numerals and the variationin the present case is much more than that. So far as sub-paragraph ( isconcerned it permits the wording to be varied, but the variation is allowedonly with reference to certain signs identified by their particular numbers.The signs erected by the Corporation do not appear to be identified with anyof the listed signs and no power is given to vary unlisted signs. Thepresent signs are not, therefore, signs upon which any variation is allowed.Finally, it was argued that the Secretary of State, acting presumably underRegulation 4 of No. 13, had allowed signs of the \"C\" type (productionsNos. 1 and 2) to be erected for the George Street area, accordingly thistype having received authorisation for one area it could be erected inanother area. This argument seems to me to fail for two reasons. Firstly,because there is nothing to show that the authorisation for George Streetwas intended to be authorisation for the whole of the City of Edinburgh.There was no evidence at all to enable such an inference to be established.Secondly, it fails, because the High Riggs signs are, in fact, differentfrom those authorised for George Street. The words used are not the same andthe High Riggs signs have the loose boards superimposed upon them.For the foregoing reasons, I have reached the conclusion that there has beenno contravention of the Tollcross Order and, accordingly, the accused is notguilty.The procurator-fiscal appealed to the High Court of Justiciary by statedcase.The stated case set forth, inter alia:The following facts were admitted or proved:--1. Production No. 5 is a Certified Copy of the Edinburgh Corporation(Tollcross Area -- Various Streets) Traffic Order, 1964.2. The said Order applies to the whole street in High Riggs.3. The photograph, production No. 7, is a photograph of the sign erected onthe South side of High Riggs at the east end thereof.4. The photograph, production No. 8, is a photograph of the sign erected onthe North side of High Riggs at the east end thereof.5. The photograph, production No. 10, is a photograph of the east end ofHigh Riggs.6. The photograph, production No. 9, is a photograph of the sign erected inShandwick Place, Edinburgh.7. The plan, production No. 6, is a plan having marked thereon the positionof the signs erected in the Central Edinburgh area by virtue of the saidEdinburgh Corporation Tollcross Area (Various Streets) Traffic Order, 1964.8. The letter, production No. 11, is a letter from the Town Clerk,Edinburgh, to Messrs J. & A. Hastie, 43 York Place, Edinburgh, therespondent's law agents, and in terms thereof the Corporation of Edinburghhave not asked for any authorisation to erect signs in connection with thesaid Edinburgh Corporation Tollcross Area (Various Streets) Traffic Order,1964, from the Secretary of State.9. The sketches, productions Nos. 1 and 2, are sketches showing the type ofsign used in parking zone areas. 10. George Street, Edinburgh, is a parkingmeter zone area authorised by the Secretary of State in virtue of the powersgranted to him by section 85 of the Road Traffic Act, 1960.11. The signs used to indicate that George Street is a parking meter zoneconform to those shown in productions Nos. 1 and 2, they were authorised bythe Secretary of State, the letter, production No. 3, contains the approval,and the letter, production No. 4, is from the Scottish Home Department tothe Town Clerk's Department in regard to signs for the George Street zone.12. The signs shown in productions Nos. 7 and 8, are similar in shape tothose erected for the George Street zone but they do not have the words\"Meter Parking Only\" the days and times are different and there are noloose boards hung *307 on the George Street zone signs bearing the words\"No Waiting Except As Authorised by Tollcross Area Traffic Control Order\".13. The said loose boards are made of hardboard, the background is whitewith black lettering.14. On 12th November 1964 between the hours of 8 a.m. and 6 p.m. therespondent left her motor car, registered number 9016 SC in High Riggs onthe south side thereof, for a period of twenty minutes.I found the respondent not guilty for the reasons which are given in thesecond opinion attached hereto.The question of law for the opinion of the Court was:\"Upon the foregoing facts was I entitled to find the respondent notguilty?\"The case was heard before the High Court of Justiciary on 24th June 1965.Arguedfor Appellant.--It was conceded that the signs erected in High Riggsdid not comply with the regulations prescribed by the Minister under section51 of the principal Act. (i) The respondent was charged with a contraventionof article 7 of the Order. There was no question of mens rea and she hadadmittedly left her car in High Riggs for a period of twenty minutes. Theterms of article 7 were absolute: Anderson v. Rose, 1919 J.C. 20, 1919 2S.L.T. 86; Howman v. Russell, 1923 J.C. 32, 1923 S.L.T. 336; and Mitchell v.Morrison, 1938 J.C. 64, 1938 S.L.T. 201 (ii) Estoknowledge was required, itcould be inferred. The question of what was adequate notice was not dealtwith by the sheriff-substitute: Macdonald on The Criminal Law of Scotland,5th edition, page 1. (iii) The erection of signs under the Road Traffic Act,1960 was not a necessary preliminary for contravention of the order.Regulation 15 © was accordingly ultra vires.Failure to do something after anorder had been made could not affect the validity of the order. (iv) In anyevent traffic signs in the regulations did not mean the same as trafficsigns under the 1960 Act. There was no definition of traffic signs in the1961 Regulations. The definition was contained in the regulationsthemselves.Arguedfor Respondent.--Dole was required when a person was convicted of acriminal offence, Mitchell v. Morrison (supra). (i) The 1964 Order did notcreate any offence and no penalty was specified in it. The problem was toapply the principles of Mitchell v. Morrison to the 1960 Act. Section 26 (7)assumed a duly published order under section 29 (2) and Regulation 15 © ofthe 1961 Regulations. Parliament contemplated publication as part and parcelof the order. The traffic signs were manifestly inadequate as the essentialinformation was missing. (ii) Prima facie the term \"traffic signs\"shouldhave the same meaning as in the principal Act. In terms of section 51 thesigns conveyed either information or warnings. The signs envisaged byRegulation 15 © had to conform to the regulations made under section 51 (2)of the principal Act. Counsel also referred to Lim Chin Aik v. The Queen[1963] A.C. 160.On 25th June 1965 the Court answered the question in the affirmative andrefused the appeal.The Lord Justice-General (Clyde).This is a stated case which raises quite an important issue in regard totraffic signs in relation to offences regarding traffic orders. Therespondent was charged with a contravention of article 7 of the EdinburghCorporation (Tollcross Area -- Various Streets) Traffic Order, 1964. I shallrefer to this order hereafter as the 1964 Order. The sheriff-substitute heldthat she was not guilty and this appeal has been taken by the prosecutoragainst that decision.Article 7 of the Order provides, inter alia, that no person shall cause orpermit any vehicle to wait in any of the lengths of road specified in theFifth Schedule to the Order between certain hours and on certain days. Inthe Schedule, one of the lengths of roads specified is High Riggs (wholestreet). It is not in dispute that the respondent did leave her car in thestreet during a non-permitted period. The main contention for the Crown wasthat this undisputed fact, together with the terms of the 1964 Order, wassufficient to justify the conviction of the respondent.But, in my opinion, this is too superficial a view of the situation. The1964 Order does not, by itself, create any offence nor warrant any penalty.It is a piece of delegated legislation valid only in so far as authorised bythe statute under which it is executed, namely sections 26 and 27 of theRoad Traffic Act, 1960. It is in section 26 (2) of the 1960 Statute and notin the 1964 Order that the offence is created and a penalty authorised. Itis, therefore, necessary to consider what was the offence which Parliamentwas creating.The offence (see section 26 (7)) was an offence against a traffic regulationorder. The requisites of such an order are set out in section 26 of the nextthree following sections (see the opening words in section 26 (1)). Section29 (2) of the Act, inter alia, provides that where a traffic regulationorder is made by a local authority, the local authority shall publish insuch manner as may be prescribed by regulations made by the appropriateminister, notice of the making and effect of the order. Such regulationshave in fact been made and are the Traffic Regulation Orders (Procedure)(Scotland) Regulations, 1961, Statutory Rules and Orders, 1961, No. 669.These regulations expressly purport to be made in the exercise of the powerconferred by section 29 of the 1960 Act. Paragraph 15 of these Regulations,inter alia, provides: \"After an order has been made by a council\" (i.e. inthe present case the Corporation) \"the council shall ... (c.) forthwithtake all such steps as are reasonably practicable to cause to be erected onor near to the said roads, traffic signs in such positions as the councilmay consider to *308 be requisite for the purpose of securing that adequateinformation as to the effect of the order is given to persons using the saidroads.\" It was argued to us that Regulation 15 was ultra vires but it seemsto me clearly to be within the powers conferred by Parliament by section 29(2) of the 1960 Act.I quite recognise that when Parliament creates a new offence by statute itmay so frame the duty on the members of the public that an offence can becommitted even though there is no negligence on the part of that member ofthe public, no mens rea and no knowledge even of the existence of the newstatutory duty. But that is not a situation which is lightly to be presumedand the burden would be on the Crown to satisfy the Court that the dutycreated by the statute is of this absolute character (Mitchell v. Morrison,1938 J.C, 64, per Lord Justice-General Normand, at page 71, 1938 S.L.T.201): (compare Anderson v. Rose, 1919 J.C. 20, 1919 2 S.L.T. 86; Howman v.Russell, 1913 J.C. 32, 1923 S.L.T. 336; Hunter v. Clark, 1956 J.C. 59, 1956S.L.T. 188, and Lim Chin Aik v. The Queen [1963] A.C. 160). But from thestatutory provisions in the present case to which I have already referred itseems quite clear that in this case Parliament never intended to impose anyabsolute obligation at all. It was an integral part of the statutory schemefor a traffic regulation order that notice by means of traffic signs shouldbe given to the public using the roads which were restricted so as to warnusers of their obligations. Unless these traffic signs were thereaccordingly and the opportunity was thus afforded to the public to know whatthey could not legally do, no offence would be committed. It would, indeed,be anomalous and absurd were the position otherwise. Apart altogether frompersons familiar with the restrictions, visitors or long-distance travellerscould not reasonably be expected to know of the existence of therestrictions in any particular street and it is only natural therefore thatParliament required adequate notice of the restriction on the site before anoffence against these traffic regulations could be charged and a penaltyexacted.The next question therefore is whether in this case the notice required byRegulation 15 © was given. The notice required is to take the form of\"traffic signs\". There is no further definition in the regulations of whatis meant by \"traffic signs\" and one is, therefore, driven back to thestatute under which the regulations were made for a definition of thesewords. The definition is contained in section 51 of the 1960 Act. Unlessthere had been some restricted meaning given in the regulations to the words\"traffic signs\" it is necessary, according to ordinary rules ofconstruction, that the words as used in the Regulations of 1961 which weremade under the Act must have the same meaning as these words in the Actitself. But it is clear that the signs erected at High Riggs did not conformto the requirements of a traffic sign as defined in section 51 and theregulations made by the Secretary of State under that section. There is noprovision in the Act or in the regulations for a different kind of trafficsign not authorised by the minister.On the whole matter, therefore, in my opinion, there was a duty imposed onthe Corporation as an essential part of the validity of the TrafficRegulation Order to publicise the order in a certain way, namely by erectingcertain specified traffic signs. The requisite signs were not erected andthe offence charged, which is a purely statutory offence, was not thereforecommitted. For the existence of a valid traffic regulation order inconformity with the Act and Regulations is a sine qua non of theestablishment of an offence against the order.The question put to us therefore, in my opinion, should be answered in theaffirmative.Lord Carmont.I agree with your Lordship.Lord Migdale.In view of what your Lordship has said I do not find it necessary to repeatthe facts in detail. Two things are clear (first) the signs erected do notconform to the pattern and colour laid down by Statutory Instrument 13 of1957 and (second) the signs erected are ambiguous.If the appellant is right neither of these things matter. His argument isthat the Tollcross Area Traffic Order is by itself effective to impose anabsolute prohibition against waiting in High Riggs. As the respondent's cardid wait there for some twenty minutes she was liable, on summaryconviction, to a fine not exceeding £20. The test to be applied is anobjective one and the fact that the respondent claimed she had no mens reawas irrelevant. This contention was rejected by the sheriff-substitute and,in my view, he was right to do so. Ignorance that a statutory regulation hasbeen breached is no defence if the obligation is an absolute one (see LordJustice-General Normand in Mitchell v. Morrison, 1938 J.C. 64, at page 71,1938 S.L.T. 201). The question whether the obligation is an absolute one, oris qualified in some way so as to imply that the breach must have beencommitted \"knowingly\", is to be decided by considering both the languageof the order creating the offence and the subject matter with which itdeals. In the case of Lim Chin Aik v. The Queen [1963] A.C. 160, P.C.LordEvershed referred (at page 172) with approval to a passage by Mr JusticeWright in Sherras' case ([1895] 1 Q.B. 918, at page 921). \"There is apresumption that mens rea or evil intention or knowledge of the wrongfulnessof the Act, is an essential ingredient in every offence, but thatpresumption is liable to be displaced either by the words of the statutecreating the offence or by the subject matter with which it deals and bothmust be considered\". I think this accords with our law in Scotland and thatthe subject matter must be looked at as well as the phraseology.The appellant contended that the words of the order were unambiguous andthat paragraph (7) imposed an absolute prohibition against waiting in HighRiggs between certain hours on certain days. Once that order was signed andsealed it came *309 into force and although it required to be published oncein a local newspaper and the Edinburgh Gazette no sign boards required to beerected at the entry to High Riggs.The subject matter of this order is the regulation of traffic in theTollcross area of the city. This requires that traffic shall proceed in onedirection along another street. Certain turns are prohibited in some streetsand waiting is banned in yet another group of streets. If the appellant isright this well regulated flow of traffic is to be achieved by nothing morethan signing an order in the City Chambers. Common sense, if nothing more,requires that there should be adequate and intelligible notices at theimportant points on the streets concerned so that those who do not read theScotsman or subscribe to the Edinburgh Gazette may know what to do when theyget to Tollcross. The fact that notices of a kind were in fact put upsuggests that this aspect of the problem was not overlooked.However the question is, in my view, resolved if one turns from the order tothe Road Traffic Act. 1960. Section 26 of that Act is the statutory warrantfor the making of the order in question. Counsel for the appellant said onemust not look beyond that section and in particular we must not have regardto section 29 (2) of the Act because it deals only with the procedure ofmaking the order and not with steps to make it effective. For my part I donot know why I should not have regard to the statute as a whole. Section 29provides that where a traffic regulation is made by a local authority \"thelocal authority shall publish, in such manner as may be prescribed byregulations made by the minister, notice of the making and effect of theorder\". The Traffic Regulation Orders (Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations,1961 (S.I. 1961, No. 669) were made under section 29 of the Road TrafficAct, 1960. Regulation 15 requires that after the order has been made thecouncil shall take certain steps. These include giving notice in the pressand in the Gazette and shall \"© forthwith take all such steps as arereasonably practicable to cause to be erected on the roads, traffic signs... for the purpose of securing that adequate information as to the effectof the order is given to persons using the said roads\".In my opinion the erection of traffic signs at the locus is properlyrequired by the regulations as part of the procedure to make known theeffect of the order. In deference to counsel for the appellant's contention,I would point out that the primary meaning of the words \"published\" is notconfined to printing in a newspaper but is \"to make known publicly orgenerally\" (see S.O.D., Volume II, page 1615).If I am right it means that the order is not effective unless and until thecouncil complies with Regulation 15 © and erects road signs at the locus.Signs were erected but they were not the proper ones nor were they clear.Section 51 of the Road Traffic Act deals with Road Signs and StatutoryInstrument No. 13 of 1957. Regulation 8 deals with \"prohibitory signs\" anddefines their form and colour. It is conceded in this case that the signserected do not match the pattern laid down. Accordingly, it would appearthat the council has not done all that it is required to do regarding theorder and cannot claim that the respondent is liable to the penalty imposedby section 26 (7) of the Road Traffic Act, 1960.Even if I am wrong regarding the application of section 51 of the Act andthe Statutory Instruments of 1957 and take the view that the Corporation isentitled to design signs to its own pattern, I do not regard the one shownin production No. 7 as giving adequate information to persons using the HighRiggs. If it had said \"No waiting\" or \"No waiting in this Street\"itmight have had that effect but all it says is that the driver is entering a\"controlled zone\" and can only wait if authorised to do so by the order.How is he to know if his \"wait\" is \"prohibited\" or \"authorised\"?At any rate it is clear that the notice does not impose on the driver anabsolute obligation not to wait in High Riggs.For these reasons, I think the question should be answered in theaffirmative.Hope this helps.Regards,GilesIf the truth can be told so as to be understood it will be believed -Terence McKenna>From: "Giles Pepperell" >To: >Subject: Signs Must Be As Prescribed>Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 23:00:43 +0100>MIME-Version: 1.0>Received: from lon-gs3dmrelay.mistral.net ([217.154.246.188]) by>bay0-mc1-f15.bay0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.2444); Thu,>27 Jul 2006 14:56:45 -0700>Received: from mail.starpointcs.com ([217.154.200.150]>helo=svengalisj1oxz)by lon-gs3dmrelay.mistral.net with smtp (Exim 4.51)id>1G6DoN-0002LQ-Mjfor gilespepperell@hotmail.com; Thu, 27 Jul 2006 22:54:32>+0100>X-Message-Info: txF49lGdW43YAVNpKOVI3k8tYdgm/oZ6XoAtX9DI8c4=>X-MSMail-Priority: Normal>X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.6604 (9.0.2911.0)>X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1807>Return-Path: giles@militia.demon.co.uk>X-OriginalArrivalTime: 27 Jul 2006 21:56:45.0783 (UTC)>FILETIME=[8D894670:01C6B1C7]>>

Car cloning nightmare leaves bewildered driver with mystery fines

2006-08-31T06:07:00.000-07:00

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

2006-08-31T05:46:00.000-07:00

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

2006-08-15T06:17:00.000-07:00

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

2006-08-11T06:14:00.000-07:00

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

2006-08-11T06:10:00.000-07:00

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

2006-08-09T04:16:00.000-07:00

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

2006-08-04T05:48:00.000-07:00

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

Car drivers vote with their wheels over parking fines

2006-07-30T06:00:00.000-07:00

The Scotsman
ERIC DYMOCK

BANNING cars restores social justice, removes dangers, rights anomalies and provides Roundheads with a cosy glow. Global warming, traffic jams, the decline of the corner shop, child obesity and inner city poverty can all be solved by restrictions, limitations and banning orders.
Now, bless our souls, cars are responsible for our moral decline. Preaching from the pulpit, the Today programme or whatever platform he could command, the Bishop of London judges big cars sinful. God is apparently on the side of scientists who say cars are to blame for global warming, and He doesn't believe those who say global warming is like global cooling, and one will most surely follow the other.

Cars are certainly sinful in Aberdeen, which is restricting them to 20mph - not that you can go much faster down Union Street, except perhaps in the dead of night, in which case 20mph could land you with a charge of kerb-crawling.
It is sinful to take children to school in cars. Watch out for Scottish Executive experiments in your area, which will collapse the moment the first child is abducted, tumbles off a bicycle or falls under a lorry because mum was forbidden to drive to the school gates. Proper school buses are the only solution.
Cars are sinful in Edinburgh unless all the seats are occupied. The council would like a no-overtaking rule on single-occupancy cars on the ring road. It fairly makes a case for picking up hitchhikers and speeding past in the fast lane. Transport commissioner Andrew Burns says multiple-occupancy lanes are used in America, forgetting the six-lane freeways where such a rule just might be applicable. Not much chance on our own dear two-lane Edinburgh South-Semi-Circular, which Councillor Burns would reduce to a crawl in retaliation for rejecting his referendum on congestion charging.
Cars are sinful to the Commission for Integrated Transport. It would really like to be the Commission for Social Engineering, though it has now tacitly agreed what inhabitants of the real world have been telling it for years: parking restrictions and badly thought-out traffic schemes kill off city centres.
People want cars for shopping. Cars allow them to stay out of the rain and keep dry, or stay out of the sun and keep cool.
Alas, Oliver Cromwell's heirs disapprove. Fines and traffic wardens have scared them away. Old people want to park near shops, and even young people laden with a week's comestibles don't want to carry them for miles with a meter ticking down to fine-time, so they go out of town. They have voted with their wheels in Edinburgh, Glasgow, Birmingham, London and all over Europe.
Accordingly, the Commission for Social Engineering now wants to abolish free parking in out-of-town centres. "Given the growing problem of congestion and concerns about the environment, [driving to out-of-town centres] is unsustainable," it thunders. "Nor does the out-of-town retail model help engender social inclusion and accessibility for the wider community."
Get real. The "wider community" goes to shopping centres by the hundreds of thousands because the Commission, and its satraps like Andrew Burns, have expelled it from town centres.
"The Commission recognises that for some shopping trips the car is the most convenient option. But this level of car use is not sustainable."
Helen Holland, the member who led its enquiry into retailing, is long on jargon but short on realism. Dirigistes and social engineers hate cars so much that any excuse can be used to attack them. "We want to see local authorities... taking the right decisions" - by which Ms Holland means "our" decisions.
Even the RAC Foundation, not invariably on the side of the honest motorist, thinks the report underestimates the importance of parking and is unrealistic in recommending instead what it calls "quality public transport - particularly park & ride - as a solution for rural shoppers with no alternative to using the car".
An RAC Foundation survey showed how parking determines where we live, work, shop and play. A third of drivers have given up and gone home due to lack of parking. About the same number have cruised for 20 minutes looking for a space, and 45% feel unsafe in car parks at night.
Yet here is a job for the Commission for Integrated Transport which would make a change from recommending restrictions or discouraging cars. Get out into the country, to the Highlands and Islands, where transport is anything but integrated, and where heavily subsidised Caledonian MacBrayne doesn't fill the watery gaps out of office hours.
Integrating ferries with roads would be a good use of the Commission's time and resources. For example, how disintegrated it is for the NHS to charter medevac helicopters costing goodness knows how much per hour to inshore islands like Bute while £10m car ferries snore the night away at Rothesay pier.
No ferry is available or willing to transport an ambulance, or anything else for that matter, between 8pm and 6.30am. Be prepared for CalMac to claim an obscure or, as it has done before, a "secret" maritime regulation that prevents it sailing at unsocial hours. Roads do not close down by night, yet large viable communities are cut off for 10 hours out of 24.
They do things better in Scandinavia, where subsidised ferries are regarded as extensions of the highway network, and "sustainable" means more than a campaigner's jargon.

Londoners to have their say in major parking consultation

2006-07-28T06:04:00.000-07:00

24 dash
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.

Motorists count cost of parking

2006-07-27T05:41:00.000-07:00

Lancashire Evening Post

Motorists in Wyre have been slapped with parking fines three times as often this year, although the number of fines issued in other areas of Lancashire has reduced.
The number of tickets handed out in the borough by Parkwise during the first half of 2006 was more than triple the amount given out in same period in 2005.
More than double the amount of cash has been collected in fines.
Between January 1 and June 30 this year, Parkwise issued 4,762 £60 tickets to on and off-street parkers, compared to 1,492 during the same period last year.
The total for the whole of 2005 was only 4,842.
A Wyre Council spokesman blamed the rise on the borough's parking enforcement having been "significantly understaffed" before this year.
He added: "We would assure all residents that, despite the rumours, none of the car parking attendants operating in the Wyre area receive commission or any other incentive to drive targets to increase the number of tickets issued in the borough.
"In Lancaster, South Ribble and Chorley, the number of fines dished out has dropped.
In South Ribble in the six-month period from January to June, just 1,919 tickets were issued, compared to 2,150 for the same time last year.
Tony Pimblett, South Ribble Council cabinet member for streetscene services, said: "Hopefully this means fewer drivers are parking illegally on our streets than last year. People who park in accordance with the Highway Code and comply with notices have nothing to fear."
The Evening Post understands the number of fines issued in Preston has dropped by 30%, although figures were not available.
Parkwise

Council picks up £414,000 in parking fines

2006-07-26T05:43:00.000-07:00

Doncaster Today

COUNCIL coffers have been swelled by more than £400,000 since the authority took control of parking offences eleven months ago.
Parking wardens have issued 22,057 fines - more than 2,000 a month - which have cost drivers £414,202, new figures show.
Most drivers are likely to be caught out in the Frenchgate car park, where 1,809 penalty tickets have been issued.
Priory Place is the street where most tickets have been handed out with 815 drivers fined.
Most of the cash collected by the council is used to enforce parking laws, improve street signs and repair roads, part of a a wider policy of trying to ensure the free-flow of traffic through the town and creating a safer environment.
Other ticket hot-spots are markets (1,435 fines), Waterdale Central (1,035), Printing Office Stret (752), Scot Lane (738), Waterdale Surface (706), Hall Gate (693), Market Place (651) and Armthorpe Road (575).
Mayor Martin Winter said: "Doncaster Council takes a hard line on any cars parked illegally and the level of tickets we have issued supports this.
"This enforcement action is about creating a safer, more accessible town centre for everyone and money raised from fines is directed back into the service to be spent on further enforcement as well as road signs and lines and improving roads."
Fines have risen ten-fold since the 21 parking wardens took to the streets, taking over from traffic wardens managed by the police.
The new system has been dogged by complaints of over-zealous wardens.
Doncaster Council has consistently denied that wardens were issuing tickets according to set targets.
Last week the Government announced that it was extending the powers of councils to deal with parking problems, as well as tightening up the law on wheel-clamping.

'No targets for Parkwise’

2006-07-26T05:38:00.000-07:00

By Gordon McCully
The Citizen
IMPROVEMENTS: Coun Eric Bell
Motorists in Chorley have been told they are in the driving seat for reducing the number of parking tickets issued.
The number of issued tickets in the second year of the controversial Parkwise scheme is on course to fall - but it can only be achieved with the help of motorists, according to Chorley Borough Council.
The council has made a number of recommendations to improve the scheme.
Councillor Eric Bell, executive member for streetscene, neighbourhoods and the environment, explained: "The aim of this council is to get the number of tickets issued down and we're doing everything we can to make sure that happens.
We have already agreed 19 recommendations for improvements to the scheme but we can only make a difference if motorists act responsibly when parking.
"The simple fact is that we have no targets whatsoever for the number of tickets issued through Parkwise - and if no-one parked illegally there would not be one solitary ticket issued in the borough.
"That's our aim and we hope every motorist will help us achieve it."
The council pointed out that:
Parking attendants have no targets for issuing tickets and there are no bonuses available to them for issuing more
It does not make any money from Parkwise
There are only a handful of people who have been issued with a ticket twice
Councillor Bell also spoke out to remind motorists that they have 10 minutes grace' to pay and display' and five minutes if they over run their time.
"The council has introduced a number of benefits to motorists in Chorley in recent weeks. Alongside the improvements to Parkwise, charges on our car parks have also been frozen until 2007.
"This is great news and especially when you consider our car parks are already among the cheapest in Lancashire and have the security seal from the British Parking Association."
2:22pm Wednesday 26th July 2006

Tickety-boo! Enforcers forced out

2006-07-25T05:35:00.000-07:00

The Scotsman
ALAN RODEN
TRANSPORT REPORTER (aroden@edinburghnews.com aroden@edinburghnews.com)

EDINBURGH'S Enforcer parking attendants are facing the axe after a rival firm pledged to transform relationships with the city's motorists.
National Car Parks (NCP) is set to take over from Central Parking System (CPS) - the firm which sparked a flood of complaints for over-zealous ticketing during five years in charge - this December.

NCP impressed the council with a promise to retrain staff, sending them on a intensive week-long programme to learn how to become "civic ambassadors", better handle confrontation and stop issuing wrong tickets.
The company also undercut its rivals by £400,000 and offered to provide a range of other community services such as reporting littering and assisting with school safety training.
The council today said the decision was more to do with quality than cost and insisted the prospective number of parking tickets was not an issue.
The new contract, which will take effect from December 3, will include a larger area, as Edinburgh's Controlled Parking Zone expands to cover areas around the city centre.
If ratified by councillors next month, NCP will also take responsibility for towing away cars and collecting cash from pay-and-display machines.
Staff and unions have been informed about the changes, but most workers with CPS will be able to transfer jobs to the new operator.
Despite a promise to cut back on mistakes, there is unlikely to be a lesser chance of getting a ticket under the new regime, and no changes to the council's overall enforcement policy.
NCP is the UK's largest provider of on-street enforcement, and already has the country's largest parking contract in Westminster. In recent years, it also stripped CPS of its role in Manchester. The existing Edinburgh operator, which took over from Apcoa's Blue Meanies in late 2001, has hit the headlines for a number of high-profile gaffes - including ticketing an ambulance, a hearse, a blood transfusion vehicle and the Scotland rugby team coach.
Sources today said there was a belief at the council that CPS was not capable of handling the new contract, which will be worth far more than the current £3.4 million deal.
Councillor Andrew Burns, the city's transport leader, said: "Parking is more in demand than ever in Edinburgh, with over one million vehicles coming into Edinburgh every week, the proportion of car-owning households rising by around 20 per cent in the last 30 years, and a 72 per cent jump in commuting trips in the last 20 years.
"Because of this, it is paramount we have the highest standard of service to ensure our Controlled Parking Zone is patrolled fairly and consistently, balancing the needs of residents, businesses, tradespeople and shoppers.
"Over the past five years, Central Parking System has done an admirable job and I thank them for their work. We always strive to provide the absolute best service possible and I am confident that National Car Parks will raise the bar even higher."
The council's recommendation, due to be published in a report tomorrow, follows a major review of parking in the city over the past year, which proposed the introduction of new permits for businesses and tradespeople.
CPS has already had its contract extended twice - once in 2004 and again this year from September to December - but the new deal is far more complex.
It will include sign and line maintenance, and cash collection. Vehicle removals and ticket machine duties were previously dealt with by the council, but NCP is now set to take responsibility for these areas and 24 council employees will be transferred to the new set-up.
By 2008, the expansion of parking restrictions will mean attendants cover nine extra zones outside the city centre for the first time, with Hillside, Broughton, Marchmont, Sciennes and the Grange being included from this September. This is expected to bring in an extra £3m in fines, on top of the £7m already collected each year.
The tender documents for the new contract were based on the British Parking Association's model contract and the evaluation of each contractor was based on a 70 per cent quality and 30 per cent cost and revenue formula.
As well as CPS and NCP, it is thought the two other major parking enforcement firms in the UK - Vinci Park and Apcoa - were also in the running. CPS was in the final shortlist of two, along with NCP.
NCP spokesman James Pritchard said the firm was aware of the council's recommendation and is awaiting its decision. But he said the firm vows to "understand the local population".
He added: "We have an excellent training regime focused on customer service and conflict resolution. We encourage our parking attendants to be responsible on the street.
"If you can train people right from the start to take a certain attitude on to the street, that can make a real difference in the way staff are perceived.
"The aim for NCP is to get it right first time. If you do that, then you don't have as many problems, and it leads to lower levels of appeals and fewer complaints."
NCP, which has contracts with 35 local authorities across Britain, has proposed introducing a new customer charter between itself, the council and the community that commits to "higher levels of accuracy and transparency".
Although the details have not yet been discussed, parking attendants could also provide other services, such as reporting fly-tipping, littering, abandoned vehicles, and safety issues.
In Islington, the parking operator recently teamed up with the local council and police force to help reduce crime and antisocial behaviour.
A spokeswoman for CPS today said the firm was "disappointed" not to be recommended for the new contract.
"We understand that the recommendation is in no way reflective of the level of service that we have provided during the contract," she said. We have enjoyed a healthy relationship with the City of Edinburgh and look forward to working with them in the future. We wish NCP well."

Parking fine cash fear

2006-07-24T05:31:00.000-07:00

Council faces losing millions over 'wrongly worded' penalty tickets
Leeds Today
By Tony Gardner

LEEDS City Council could be set for "financial catastrophe" over claims parking tickets issued in the city are not enforceable by law.
Highways bosses are nervously awaiting the outcome of a High Court judicial review which could invalidate thousands of parking tickets, costing the local authority millions in lost revenue.
The decision could open the floodgates for drivers to appeal against parking charge notices (PCNs) if judges rule that tickets handed out by traffic wardens are incorrectly worded.
Last month the YEP told how the father of a 12-year-old boy suffering from a rare incurable brain condition was taking on the council, claiming that eight tickets issued were not lawful.
The council is refusing to back down over its demands for £480 and the case was due to go an appeal hearing.
But the hearing is one of countless cases across the country to be adjourned by the National Parking Adjudication Service pending the outcome of the High Court hearing which relates to tickets issues by Barnet Council in London.
Barnet have already lost before a Parking and Traffic Appeals Service adjudicator on the wording of their PCN and lost again after asking for a review of the case.
Neil Herron, a campaigner against parking enforcement, said if they lose at the High Court for a third time the implications for many local authorities who have similarly worded PCNs, including Leeds, could be "financially catastrophic."
Mr Herron said the mix-up was due to the Leeds notices not containing the date and time of the contravention.
Recent victories by motorists in Bury and Sunderland have resulted in local authorities having to return millions of pounds in collected fines.
Mr Herron added: "Many local authorities who have seen decriminalised parking enforcement as a cash-cow to supplement their budgets are going to pay the price."
Ashley Finister, from Bramley, was hit with eight parking tickets over the course of a month when he parked close to Leeds General Infirmary as he ferried his desperately ill son Jordan to the hospital.
The tickets were issued after Jordan's disabled parking permit had expired and on other occasions he had parked in restricted areas.
Mr Finister said he was determined to take advantage of the technicality.
A council spokesman said: "The Leeds ticket is not the same as the one issued in Barnet and we are confident that ours is legal."
tony.gardner@ypn.co.uk

Parking Attendants To Replace Peggy? -

2006-07-21T05:26:00.000-07:00

ThameNews

THE sight of a traffic warden patrolling the streets of Thame will soon be a thing of the past – but that does not mean the end of double yellow lines and parking restrictions in the town.
As from the middle of 2008, Thame is likely to see civilian parking attendants, contracted by the county council, take over the job from its currently police- administered warden,Peggy Long, as has already happened in Oxford and some London boroughs.
Under the provisions of the Road Traffic Act 1991, parking offences will be “decriminalised” and brought within the civil enforcement system.
At the same time a number of additional enforcement responsibilities, such as restricted (yellow line), off street parking, will also be removed from the police and also given to councils.
Mr Richard Dix, Assistant Head of Transport at Oxfordshire County Council, told members of Thame Town Council’s Policy and Resources committee last night that the county council will get to keep the money raised through the new enforcement system, but that he did not expect it to do much more than be self-financing.
Richard Dix explained that before the changes can be implemented, a review is to be carried out of all parking restrictions in the county before the council can make an official application to the Department of Transport for a Civil Enforcement Order.
OCC will then have to work with the district council (SODC), to work out how they will administer the system on the county council’s behalf and it also intends to consult with parish and town councils.
Town Cllr David Dodds, the new Chair of Policy and Resources, was reassured by Mr Dix that the pay of the new parking attendants in Oxford are not related to targets or the number of Penalty Notices they give out, and that if any surplus money was made, how that money could be spent on environmental improvements in towns, like air quality, public transport, new signage etc had potential for discussion between his and individual town councils.
Cllr Dodds said that he would wish the current car parking system in Thame, where either two or three hours of free parking was available, was “preserved at all costs.”
Mr Dix replied that he could not guarantee anything for the future, but that it was his personal view that it was better “to keep things simple and not make changes.”
Whilst the review of current parking restrictions in the county is underway, the county council has implemented an embargo on any new parking restrictions, including new schemes for residents’ or business parking permits.
For more information about the new Act and its implications, see Link

ED. Peggy Long has made it clear that she has no intention of becoming a civilian parking attendant and will retire before the changeover takes place.

Hospital parking charges warning

2006-07-21T04:43:00.000-07:00

Cambs 24

Parking charges at Doddington and Ely hospitals are inevitable to bring them into line with the North Cambs Hospital at Wisbech.
"The status quo is not tenable," said Sharon Fox, director of corporate affairs for East Cambs and Fenland PCT.
"Current arrangements have not been developed in a coherent and consistent way and lack any explicit set of underpinning principles.
"Significant funding is having to be diverted from frontline services to finance a £250,000 expansion and refurbishment scheme for the car park at the Princess of Wales Hospital, Ely. That is just one of the reasons why the Primary Care Trust was considering car park charges, said Ms Fox. The PCT says it needs to spend the money on the Ely car park soon, and this is in addition to £95,000 spent refurbishing car parks across the trust last year.
A draft parking policy has been developed and its recommendations will go to the new Cambridgeshire PCT being set up.
On Monday, a four-week consultation exercise began, inviting comments from staff and patients and the public to the trust's three main hospital sites, at Ely, Doddington and Wisbech - the only hospital which so far charges to park.
Ms Fox said the policy was being developed "to recognise and try to deal with the tension between the need to ensure staff can get to their workplace and park with ease, while enabling patients and their visitors, many of whom are elderly and disabled, to have reasonable access to our hospitals".
The draft policy was the PCT's first attempt to "face up and address these challenges in the context of limited car parking spaces on our sites.
"There is no perfect solution - these proposals represent what we think is a fair compromise for staff, patients and visitors."

Parking charges ‘exploiting patients’

2006-07-20T05:24:00.000-07:00

This is Hertfordshire
By Louisa Barnett

Patients visiting Watford General Hospital are forking out up to £10 a day in parking charges, making it one of the top ten most expensive hospital car parks in the country.
Parking costs at the hospital, which serves one third of Hertsmere residents, have rocketed by up to 67 per cent in the past year and have been slammed by health scrutiny committee members who have accused West Hertfordshire NHS Hospital Trust of exploiting patients. They say the trust, which is currently trying to claw back a £28.3 million deficit, is using patients to help balance its books and ease its cash crisis.
Derek Marcus, chairman of Hertsmere's patient forum, said: "It's extortionate.
"We know it the trust is trying to recoup money but it's not fair for patients to pay the brunt.
"It's a quandary for the trust but it's hard for the patients. It really is an imposition.
"There used to be a moderate charge to prevent neighbouring motorists from parking there which is understandable, but these charges are just ridiculous."
The Royal Free Hospital in Hampstead, London, was labelled the healthiest earner, charging its patients up to £72 a day to park their cars.
Currently, the prices at Watford are £2.50 for up to three hours, £3 for three to five hours and £10 for more than five hours.
However, a concession scheme is in place ensuring that disabled drivers and those visiting certain units, such as the stroke unit, are exempt from the charges. The scheme is also extended to those attending the hospital three times a week and those visiting patients who are staying in the hospital long-term.
A spokesperson for the trust said: "It's not got anything to do with clawing back our deficit.
"We undertook the car parking review three years ago and at that time, it was about improving the management of the car park.
"It costs us a lot of money to maintain and we also have to pay a capital charge on the land. It's not just there we have to pay money for it and the money we charge for parking goes straight back into that.
"The charges are in no way connected to our debt."
In March, it was revealed that Barnet and Chase Farm Hospitals NHS Trust made more than £1 million from parking charges last year, as it announced its increased parking charges.
The trust, which serves two-thirds of Hertsmere residents, came tenth in a list of 146 hospital trusts nationwide ranked in order of how much money they raised through parking.

Parking charges should be scrapped for patients

2006-07-20T05:21:00.000-07:00

Hospital's parking fees attacked by MPs
This is Bradford
By Anika Bourley

Parking charges should be scrapped for patients having to attend Bradford hospitals every day, according to a group of MPs.
The Commons Health Select Committee also says there should be discounted parking for frequent visitors.
The committee's report, which said NHS charges were "a complete mess", also said the high cost of calls to hospital bedside phones is "insupportable".
Earlier this year the Telegraph & Argus revealed hospitals in Bradford raked in nearly £1 million in parking fees with Bradford Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust collecting £861,000.
Nationally, the select committee report revealed hospitals make £78 million a year from parking £63 million from patients and visitors and £15 million from their own staff.
Chairman Kevin Barron said: "Parking fees should be reduced or eliminated altogether for patients attending hospitals regularly. It is unacceptable that people have to pay hundreds of pounds to attend for necessary treatment."
The report said: "While car parking charges must remain a matter for hospital trusts, we recommend that they provide reduced rates for patients and their visitors who attend regularly and free parking for those who must attend on a daily basis."
MPs also criticised the cost of incoming calls to hospital bedside telephones.
Shipley MP Philip Davies last month accused hospitals of cashing in on sick people by using private phone providers which "exploit" through extremely high charges.
He called on hospitals to research what areas mobile phones could be used safely to cut growing costs for patients.
Airedale General Hospital in Steeton, near Keighley, does not have a private phone service but has pay phones on wards. Guidance on mobile phone policy is displayed around the hospital grounds. But MPs argued some hospitals which use Patientline Plc were allowing the company to charge 49p a minute for incoming peak-time calls and 39p a minute for evenings and weekends.
A peak-rate call to Australia on a typical BT residential line costs 22p a minute but just 9p during evenings and weekends.
A spokesman for Bradford Teaching Hospitals said: "We work hard to provide car parking as cheaply as possible.
"We do understand the concerns of patients and visitors and talk regularly to patient representatives. We have recently introduced concessions for long-stay inpatients and outpatients who need to come back for regular appointments."
A spokesman for Patientline said: "Patientline charges as little as it is able to while ensuring it can keep running the service without the NHS having to contribute a penny. We have so far invested £160 million over the past ten years and have yet to make a profit due to this heavy investment programme.
"What we offer is not an essential part of someone's care it's a service they may freely choose whether to use or not. If patients and relatives did not pay for the service it would simply be withdrawn, and many thousands would be denied the choice."

Parking charges explained

2006-07-20T04:58:00.000-07:00

Cambridge Evening News

COUNCIL officials are on duty in Newmarket's Rookery multi-storey car park this week to explain the new 'pay on foot' charging system.
The car park is the last in the town to have charges imposed.
The introduction of the charges was delayed when Forest Heath District Council members decided to change plans so disabled drivers could still park free of charge.
But one of the problems encountered on Tuesday, when the car park was busy with market-day shoppers, was caused by disabled drivers queuing for spaces and blocking the car park exit.
The changes to the original plans cost around £20,000 and involved moving the car park exit barrier. Under the original proposals, disabled drivers would have had to pay, but councillors changed their minds after protests.
Sally Rode, council spokeswoman, said: "We will have people in the car park all this week to explain the system. They will be there to see what problems crop up."
Residents' parking schemes are now being considered to tackle the problem of on-street parking, which has worsened since the changes.

Out-of-town shoppers may lose luxury of free parking

2006-07-20T04:56:00.000-07:00

Evening Times Online
By Wendy Miller

MAKING drivers pay congestion charges at out-of-town shopping centres would help revitalise city centres, it was claimed today.
A Government commission is calling for consumers who shun struggling towns like Paisley or city shopping centres like Glasgow in favour of Braehead or the Fort to face parking or congestion fees. The Commission for Integrated Transport (CfIT) claims there should be a "levelling of the playing field" between town centres - where people have to pay to park - and out-of-town retail parks where parking is usually free.
The report comes after the Evening Times revealed last month how shops in Glasgow city centre are to open late five nights a week in their bid to win back shoppers.
Buchanan Galleries and the St Enoch Centre bosses want traders to back a scheme that would see dozens of stores open until 9pm on week days.
Paisley is one of the biggest casualties of the current shopping trend, with consumers deserting the town in favour of Braehead.
Today's CfIT report looked at how congestion and accessibility affects shopping behaviour at retail and leisure sites.
It found bus users, cyclists and walkers tend to support town centres far more than car users.
The report also said improved public transport and facilities could help attract shoppers back to the high street.
Helen Holland, of the CFIT, said: "Our study shows 85% of shoppers going to out-of-town retail parks arrive in their cars.
"For some shopping trips, such as the weekly grocery shop, the car is the most convenient option, but this level of car use is simply not sustainable in the long term.
"We want to see local authorities, retailers and transport operators taking the right decisions to support the high street."
Glasgow city centre will face even tougher competition next year when the new Silverburn centre in Pollok opens.
Publication date 20/07/06

Northampton County Court: Sam Stockman Letter

2006-07-20T01:11:00.000-07:00

Council stands by parking policy

2006-07-09T04:40:00.000-07:00

Salisbury Journal
By Jill Harding

SALISBURY district council has defended its parking enforcement policy after the Govern-ment called for a more "motorist-friendly" approach.
Last year the council raised almost £590,000 from parking tickets, with just 0.3 per cent of appeals going to independent adjudication.
Some motorists who found a ticket on their car have accused parking ambassadors of adopting a "zero tolerance" policy and there have been a number of disputed fines, with car owners complaining they received a ticket while going for change, stopping to help someone or because signage was unclear.

Now the Government has announced that it wants to overhaul parking enforcement "to keep the traffic flowing and not raise money" with a "system that is fairer for all".
Transport secretary Douglas Alexander is asking for more transparency, a more motorist-friendly appeals process, regular reviews of parking policies and more powers for adjudicators to intervene where procedures have not been followed properly.
"The Government is determined to see a parking system that is fairer and more consistent," he said.
"These proposals are a significant stride towards achieving that goal. We have listened to motorists and it is clear that the current system needs to be improved. Taken together, the proposals in this draft guidance will strengthen the system of civil parking enforcement and help local authorities tackle local congestion and keep the traffic moving."
But the council says that the recommendations "will only reinforce the current good practices carried out in the district".
Parking bosses say that all ambassadors undergo training that can lead to an NVQ qualification and there was no incentive or reward scheme for them to issue more tickets.
If parking appeals are rejected then information about the National Parking Adjudication Service is provided and the council says it gives the Government all the information it requests and regularly reviews its policies.
"It is important that drivers have confidence in the appeals service and we would encourage any changes that raise the profile of NPAS," said a spokeswoman.
"Money raised from penalty charge notices from on-street parking is ring-fenced and can only be spent on transportation improvements. The revenue raised from off-street penalty charge notices is invested both in parking services and general council services."
6:22am Sunday 23rd July 2006

parker

2006-05-16T20:35:00.000-07:00

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

Ombudsman in

2006-04-04T07:32:00.000-07:00

Sunderland Echo
Letters Page
Wednesday March 22, 2006

Further to my letter of March 2, I have to inform you, I finally received a reply on March 9, 2006, from Sunderland Parking Services signed by Phil Barrett, Director of Development and Regeneration Services in response to my two letters dated January 22 and February 1, 2006.

He states the legal position is that a Penalty Charge Notice without a date of issue on it which has not been quashed or appealed against within the relevant time scales remain valid and he does agree the PCN issued to me on May 4, 2005, did not show a date of issue.

What does he mean by relevant timescale? I always understood if a fine was paid by writing under protest this would be regarded as an appeal.

My information is that Sunderland Council (Parking Services) were informed on the same day May 4, 2005, by National Parking Adjudication Services that a PCN must show a date of issue on it to comply with legislation.

It is my contention therefore they carried on with this procedure against the public at large from that date and it was not until early 2006 they corrected this error. Had this department carried out their duties in an efficient and competent manner after May 4, 2005, orders should have been issued from that date or as near as possible to include the missing issue date.

Arrangements should also have been put in place to refund those fines already collected with illegal PCNs. Had they done this they would not find themselves in their present impossible position.

The latest decision by Parking Services not to chase up drivers who have not paid their fines is unbelievable. They intend to reward those who have broken the law by not paying their fines! Their inefficiency and lack of compassion leaves me with no sympathy for the predicament they now find themselves in.

I have been in touch with the Parliamentary Ombudsman who is investigating my complaint and also with Councillor Peter Wood. At this time I await to hear from both of them.

E Brittain
Sunderland

DPE- Post Implementation Review

2006-02-06T05:26:00.000-08:00

Npas Keith Gunton v Rochdale Borough Council

2005-12-08T07:14:00.000-08:00

Northumbria Police - speeding

2005-12-02T06:36:00.000-08:00

Letter to Rochdale's Chief Executive...7 day notice

2005-11-30T10:09:00.000-08:00

Roger Ellis
Chief Executive
Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council,
PO Box 39,
Municipal Offices,
Smith Street,
Rochdale
OL16 1LQ
30th November 2005

Dear Mr. Ellis,

The response from Kevin Mayor, Parking and Business Development Manager, Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council of 15th November 2005 is far from satisfactory.

In the letter Mr. Mayor confirmed that 28,260 Penalty Charge Notices (totalling £660,052) had been issued by Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council between 4th July 2004 and 27th July 2005 under the Council's Decriminalised Parking Enforcement regime.

These PCNs contained the wording 'TO THE DRIVER' which render the PCNs 'void and unenforceable' under the mandatory requirements of the 1991 Road Traffic Act.
I have provided details of case law in communications previously, but for clarity have again included it below.1.

It is apparent that RMBC became aware of the fact that the PCNs were unlawful because the PCNs were immediately altered as a result of NPAS case number RE58 on 27th July 2005. The newly worded PCNs were used from 2nd August 2005 onwards.

The fact that NPAS failed to bring the matter to your attention at an earlier stage is an irrelevance as their incompetence is a separate matter and one which is to be challenged with a separate legal action.
It is Rochdale Council who have the legal responsibility and requirements to act within the law and that includes understanding the requirements of the legislation. The wording of the PCN is mandatory and not open to interpretation. The legislation is quite explicit in that regard...Section 66(3) 1991 Road Traffic Act.

The fact that you 'believed' that you were acting lawfully does not excuse the fact that you were not and the PCNs contained unlawful wording. It is not possible for the driver to make any representations and there is no reference to the driver in the legislation. It is the owner / keeper who is responsible for any 1991 RTA contraventions. To make reference to the driver on the PCN is a fundamental and glaring error.

Mr. Mayor states that there are no proposals to refund the PCN income.

I wish to put you on notice and have the matter placed on record that this money has been derived unlawfully and we wish for the monies to be refunded to everyone of the 28,260 motorists who have been unlawfully penalised.

I would be grateful for a response within 7 days confirming that you have raised the matter with Mr. Mayor, and confirmed the facts of the case.
I would be grateful if you would confirm that you will initiate proposals to repay the monies unlawfully derived to avoid costly litigation.
Should you fail to do so we reserve the right to pursue the Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council on either an individual or a class action basis for the recovery of the money, damages and costs.
We will also pursue the matter with regard to Misfeasance in Public Office by various Council Officers and matters arising from the receipt, by a public authority of unlawfully derived income.

I would also be grateful if you could confirm that a copy of this e-mail will be made available to all elected members and the District Auditor.

It is my intention to bring the matter to the attention of Paul Rowen, MP for Rochdale who we expect to raise the matter in the House of Commons as well as the Rochdale general public at large via the press and media.

Adherence to the law is paramount for any local authority and for an authority such as Rochdale to act in such a cavalier and dismissive fashion with regard to their legal requirements and responsibilities, especially when they employ highly paid officials who should not be making such fundamental errors, is one which I am sure will solicit a very angry response from the ratepaying public.

I am sure that you will carefully consider your response which I will await with eager anticipation.

Yours sincerely,

Neil Herron

The People's No Campaign
12 Frederick Street
Sunderland
SR1 1NA
0191 565 7143
07776 202045

NOTES:

1. The effect of a council disregarding the statutory provisions set down in the Road Traffic Act 1991 for notices and time limits was considered in Moulder v Sutton London Borough Council (1994 LPAS 1940113243). The Adjudicator, G.R. Hickinbottom, following Sedley J.’s (as he then was) judgment in R -v- The London Borough of Tower Hamlets and the Tower Hamlets Combined Traders Association, (1993 unreported) determined that where the Road Traffic Act 1991 stipulated that (in the Moulder case) a Penalty Charge Notice “must state” certain requirements (Section 66(3)), those requirements are mandatory. Therefore a Penalty Charge Notice failing to contain each of the requirements set down in Section 66(3) is void and unenforceable.

2. For reference: questions to / and Responses from Mr. Kevin Mayor can be viewed here

Rochdale e-mail

2005-11-30T06:26:00.000-08:00

Rochdale's Penalty Charge Notices

2005-11-30T05:41:00.000-08:00

Controlled Parking Zones

2005-11-29T06:10:00.000-08:00

CPZ Discussion paper

Audit Commission to Neil Herron

2005-11-04T06:35:00.000-08:00

Audit Commission to City Treasurer

2005-11-04T02:45:00.000-08:00

Constitution and Bill of Rights

2005-10-13T08:56:00.000-07:00

Hi Neil,

You may have already seen these links but I thought I’d forward them to you anyhow, just in case.

http://www.constitution.org/cmt/avd/law_con.htm

http://www.britannia.com/history/docs/rights.html

Kind Regards

Wayne R Pendle

18 Acorn Close
High Wycombe, Bucks
HP136XE

Mail: wayne.pendle@btinternet.com

Transport Committee

2005-09-30T01:05:00.000-07:00

Dr John Patterson
Clerk of the Committee
Transport Committee
House of Commons
Westminster
London
SW1

mail to: tramscom@parliament.uk

Submission by Neil Herron on behalf of the Metric Martyrs Defence Fund
30th September 2005

Transport Committee
Current effectiveness of Parking Provision & Enforcement Policy

I wish to make the following submission to the Committee but I also wish to make a formal request that further, more substantive evidence, either written or oral, may be submitted after the date October 3rd 2005.

The reason it will be necessary to do so as there are allegations of malfeasance, misfeasance and possibly more serious offences involving decriminalized parking enforcement in a number of local authority areas currently in the process of being uncovered. There are also serious concerns and possible legal action involving the National Parking Adjudication Service. The outcome of both of these will have fundamental and serious implications for the future of decriminalized parking enforcement across the country.

There is currently a serious internal and external investigation being conducted into the legitimacy of Sunderland City Council’s D.P.E. There has already been an admission by the City Council that over 20,000 pounds has been collected unlawfully from motorists with more to follow;.
1.Accrington Council have also been forced to repay monies to motorists who have received unlawful PCN's

2.More evidence is being uncovered in other local authorities arising from incorrect Traffic Regulation Orders or misinterpreting or misunderstanding the legislative requirements with regard to DPE.

The implications of legal action being taken in areas across the country must be fundamental to the Transport Committee’s understanding of the serious concerns that are being raised with regard to DPE and the perception by the motorist of DPE´s legitimacy.

Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 vs Road Traffic Act 1991

The first series of problems arises because of the inequitous situation across the country whereby parking restrictions are enforced under two different pieces of legislation. The motorist does not generally become aware of this inequity until he has received a ticket...ie. after having committed an ‘offence’ (under the 1984 RTRA ) or a ‘contravention’ (under the 1991 RTA).
Surely this is fundamental principle. The consequences of this do not appear to have been addressed.

For laws to be accepted and understood by society at large, they need to be seen as clear, fair and just. However, with the case of parking offences, it is the case that access to justice for an alleged offender is potentially totally different in two neighbouring local authority areas. This is purely dependent on which parking enforcement regime a Local Authority is operating.
One enforcement regime, operating under the RTRA 1984, results in an appeal process which allows access to a magistrates court. The other, operating under the RTA 1991, does not allow access to a court of law but to an 'independent' tribunal.

Under the 1984 Act it is the driver who is responsible for the offence.
Under the 1991 Act it is the registered keeper who is responsible for the contravention. Hardly fair, just, transparent or acceptable and not apparent to the motorist until he receives a ticket.
We have actual cases ready to cite as examples of injustice.

Therefore, surely the best legislative provision would be to have one national parking law to ensure fairness, transparency and acceptance rather than the situation at present, where under the RTA 1984 the system has the necessary common law checks and balances yet the system operating under the 1991 RTA simply perceived by the public as a ‘revenue raiser’ with Local Authority’s simply incentivised by profit and no access to justice for the motorist.

A simple question to ask is… “As the number of PCN’s has exponentially increased have the towns and cities become clearer of traffic?”
If the DPE enforcement system works then the number of contraventions should decrease as funded alternatives increase.
This is not the case and there appears to be no evidence to support this, but the revenue raised from a more draconian enforcement regime seems to be the main driver, not the necessity to create a fairer parking enforcement regime for local businesses, customers and residents.

Legitimacy of DPE / Bill of Rights 1689

For the avoidance of any doubt in the following matter it is very useful that the Houses of Parliament Transport Committee Press Notice ( 04 / 2005 – 06, 9 August 2005 ) refers to ‘parking fines’.
There can be no argument. If the Committee, the public, the Bulk Traffic Enforcement Centre at Northampton County Court and the legislators consider parking penalty charges as fines then the attempted justifications put forward by local authorities that it is not a fine but an ‘excess charge’ or other play on words, it is clear to all that what we are dealing with here is a fine.

Therefore, I wish for the Committee therefore to now consider and address the legality of DPE itself in light of the following...

As no doubt members will be aware, 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.’

There is a provision in the Bill of Rights Act 1689 which states;
“ That all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of a particular person before conviction are illegal and void.”

This states that a conviction is necessary before a fine or forfeit can be imposed. As you will be aware, the Bill of Rights is a "constitutional statue" and may not be repealed impliedly. This was stated in the the case Thoburn vs City of Sunderland, the decision commonly referred to as the "Metric Martyrs" Judgment. This was handed down in the Divisional Court (18th February 2002) by Lord Justice Laws and Mr Justice Crane (I will paraphrase, but have included a copy of the judgment's relevant sections 62 and 63):

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 2002.

I am not aware that the Road Traffic Act 1991 makes express reference to repealing the Bill of Rights Act 1689 therefore there can be no fine except for one that is imposed by a court.

It is therefore important that the Transport Committee considers the implications of any attempt to override the provisions of the Bill of Rights and the constitutional considerations of doing so. It will then be necessary to understand the constitutional considerations of ignoring the Declaration of Rights.

The Sunderland City Council Investigation

A specific case which has ‘implications’ for all other DPE’s across the country. The submission or application to the Department for Transport for approval by the Secretary of State to create the Special Parking Area to allow Sunderland City Council to create a DPE simply gave ‘reassurances’ that all necessary signs, lines and Traffic Regulation Orders would be in place when the DPE was to commence. If it is proved not to be the case and that the Secretary of State was misled into granting an SPA creating a DPE then there are very serious implications indeed as over 60,000 PCNs will have been issued unlawfully.

The investigation is ongoing but there has already been an admission to unlawfully receiving over £20,000 from PCN’s issued under non-existant TRO’s and the allegation is that none of the TRO’s are ‘in force’ thereby meaning every PCN issued has been done so unlawfully.
There appears to have been no checks by either the DfT or the Secretary of State regarding the substance of claims made by any applicant to have valid and accurate signage and TROs.

Evidence is coming to light of many other similar situations by other Local Authorities. It is in light of this that I stress the need for further, more detailed submissions to the Committee involving citing specific cases in detail.

NPAS (National Parking Adjudication Service)

Again, there is an ongoing investigation in relation to this body. It involves complaints to the Department of Constitutional Affairs and the Law Society.

NPAS is representing itself as a ‘ Court of Law ‘ on its website yet when questioned in writing it confirms it is not a court of law, but a tribunal.

However, the main concern is that NPAS is not ‘independent’ as it is scrutinised by a Joint Committee (comprising appointed members from participating LA’s ) and is funded solely by 60p per PCN issued.
There is no right of appeal except on a point of law.

If NPAS is not a court of Law within the meaning of Article 234 EC, therefore its decision will be in contravention of Article 6 of The European Convention on Human Rights

In order to determine whether a body making a reference is a court or tribunal of a Member State for the purposes of Article 234 EC, the Court takes account of a number of factors, such as whether the body is established by law, whether it is permanent, whether its jurisdiction is compulsory, whether its procedure is inter partes, whether it applies rules of law and whether it is independent (see, in particular, Case C-54/96 Dorsch Consult [1997] ECR I-4961, paragraph 23, and the case-law there cited, and Case C-516/99 Schmid [2002] ECR I-4573, paragraph 34).

Under the Court’s case-law, an arbitration tribunal is not a ‘court or tribunal of a Member State’ within the meaning of Article 234 EC where the parties are under no obligation, in law or in fact, to refer their disputes to arbitration and the public authorities of the Member State concerned are not involved in the decision to opt for arbitration nor required to intervene of their own accord in the proceedings before the arbitrator (Case 102/81 ‘Nordsee’ Deutsche Hochseefischerei [1982] ECR 1095, paragraphs 10 to 12, and Case C-126/97 Eco Swiss [1999] ECR I-3055, paragraph 34).

Therefore because of the rights of the individual are being removed in the name of parking ‘efficiency’ then the resistance to DPE will grow and as more and more motorists realise the illegitimacy of the whole operation and begin to challenge and clog the system then it will collapse under its own bureaucratic burden.

Neil Herron
Campaign Director
Metric Martyrs Defence Fund
12 Frederick Street
Sunderland
SR1 1NA

Notes:
1.Covered in the Sunderland Echo and Sunday Telegraph
2. Reported in the Lancashire Evening Telegraph

Zonal waiting restriction signing

2005-09-26T02:30:00.000-07:00

Zonal waiting restriction signing - Executive summary
See website here

Although this report was commissioned by the Department, the findings and recommendations are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the Department for Transport.

Controlled Parking Zones (CPZs) are mainly used in urban areas and relate only to waiting and loading restrictions. They have been designed to remove the need for time plates at yellow lines, where the restrictions apply at the times indicated on the boundary signs.

CPZs are frequently introduced by local authorities to address specific parking problems in a particular community. Research undertaken as part of this study, has shown that the most common reason for implementing a CPZ stems from the need to address residential parking difficulties, particularly where residents complain they can not park close to their house due to shopper or commuter parking. CPZs can also, however, be used to allow more free-flowing traffic through a town centre, particularly where parking causes problems for emergency services. CPZs reduce clutter on the streets, both in terms of signing and parked cars, and are therefore often supported by residents and environmentalists who campaign for less intrusive traffic signing.

The purpose of this research study has been to establish existing problems with regard to zonal waiting restriction signing and how these might be addressed. The study was therefore divided into three stages. These stages were as follows:

Stage1: Undertake a literature review, using the research team's current network of and a sample of twenty local authorities with different types of restricted zone identify the issues to be investigated in Stage 2.

Stage 2: Using a sample of eight local authority areas, undertake in-depth interviews with a number of key stakeholders in/for each area including a sample of motorists parking on-street within the regulated area.

Stage 3: Develop recommendations which can be carried forward for further investigation and possibly field trials.

The literature review (which can be found in Appendix A) investigates motorists' understanding of regulatory signing and lining, focusing specifically on Controlled Parking Zones (CPZs) and Restricted Zones (RZs). The aims were to identify issues that should be considered when questioning motorists about their understanding of the signs and to designing new signs in order to maximise the level of understanding of the meaning of those signs. The review covered the following areas: current regulations, past and existing schemes, public reaction to various aspects of signing, the environmental impact of lining and signing in environmentally sensitive areas and the effectiveness of different types of signing.

The scheme review was designed to find out about the issues surrounding the implementation of Controlled Parking Zones and Restricted Zones. Twenty local authorities were contacted and the sample included a range of different sizes of local authority from the larger urban conurbation to those with tourist attractions, rural sites, villages and small towns. The review included an operational and policy development perspective to determine the extent to which public consultation was carried out by various parties prior to a scheme being introduced.
A survey of motorists was undertaken by TRL to investigate public understanding and perception of the signs and lines relating to Controlled Parking Zones and Restricted Zones. TRL undertook the design of the study and analysis, whilst commissioning a survey company to undertake the fieldwork and data processing. The research entailed conducting questionnaire surveys in Controlled Parking Zones (CPZs) and Restricted Zones (RZs) in eight towns and cities in England. A number of issues have been explored within the survey, including motorists' interpretation of the signs and lines in their immediate vicinity, and their understanding of signs presented to them on show cards. The output from the research is used to identify the issues surrounding zone boundary signing, local signing and comprehensibility of existing signing.
Detailed stakeholder consultation exercises have been carried out within the eight selected UK towns/cities, and nationally with parking adjudicators, motoring organisations and trader representations to identify problems associated with Controlled Parking Zones and Restricted Zones. The focus was to:

Identify environmental issues related to the display of regulatory signing;

Identify the difficulties experienced by motorists to understand the signs and lines;

Identify the difficulties in planning issues;

Identify the effect of the economic viability on the town/city centre.

In Stage 3 of this study, TRL were contracted to design new signs that would attempt to solve some of the ongoing issues with CPZs and RZs. It was agreed with the customer that these signs should deal with only CPZs because the issues with Restricted Zones needed to be dealt with separately. 6 signs were therefore designed in an attempt to remedy some of the confusion experienced by motorists. The signs were designed on the basis that signing parking restrictions on a zonal basis remains.

Having proposed six new signs to replace some of the existing signing that is used within Controlled Parking Zones and Restricted Zones, the signs must be validated and approved for further development for them to proceed.

To date, the design process has been informed by a literature review, public consultation, in-house expertise and has incorporated discussion with the Client. It is considered that this collaborative approach has already provided some validation of the sign proposals, however further theoretical and practical testing should now be undertaken.

It is suggested that validation and assessment of the sign changes could consist of two processes:

consultative validation; followed by
field trials.

Each of these techniques is considered to offer a different perspective on the quality of the signs. Experience indicates that the undertaking of the 'consultative validation' is likely to require fewer resources than the 'field trials'. It is therefore proposed that the 'consultative validation' phase precedes the 'field trials'.

A number of potential areas of concern relating to the current operation of CPZs and RZs have been identified during this research study. They relate to motorists' comprehension of the concept of CPZs and RZs and how they should be used, and local authority officers' comprehension of the concept of CPZs and RZs and how they should be used to regulate parking. This report sets out some of the issues arising from the study with a discussion on how they may be resolved to ensure that the level of compliance with parking regulations increases, the number of signs that motorists experience difficulty in interpreting decreases and the ability of local authorities to comply with the regulations in the Traffic Signs Manual increases.
Based on the findings of this research study, TRL recommend that Controlled Parking Zones should not relate specifically to waiting and loading restrictions, and that motorists should not be expected to remember the restrictions while they drive around the zone. Controlled Parking Zones should relate to a regime encompassing all parking regulations in a particular area (therefore zones such as Pay & Display Zones should remain). A new entry sign should be designed and include 2 parts: the top section displaying information referring to permitted parking on a white background (possibly with the P symbol) and the bottom section describing the waiting and loading restrictions on a yellow background with the No Waiting roundel. The important point being that yellow line repeater plates should be used along all stretches of single yellow lines so that motorists are not expected to remember the times displayed on the entry sign.

In order to increase the effectiveness of Controlled Parking Zones and Restricted Zones, it is also recommended that an educational programme be devised, aimed in particular at the local authority officers who implement these zones.

Although this report was commissioned by the Department, the findings and recommendations are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the Department for Transport.

Further letter to Andrew Barfoot NPAS

2005-09-26T02:20:00.000-07:00

23rd September, 2005.

Mr Andrew Barfoot,
Tribunal Manager,
National Parking
Adjudication Service,
Level 6,
Barlow House,
Minshull Street,
MANCHESTER.
M1 3DZ.

By e-mail only:-
npas@parking-appeals.co.uk

Dear Mr Barfoot,

Re: Case Number WC49 – de Crittenden –v- Worcester City Council
Penalty Charge Notice WC00072143 – 26th June, 2003 –

I refer to our telephone conversation this morning and to an Adjudicator’s Direction, issued by NPAS and dated 20th September, 2005.

The relevant Direction provides that a Mr R A Prickett, Parking Adjudicator, has resolved to deny me the right to employ recording equipment at a hearing before a tribunal over which he is to preside – and Mr Prickett has provided several legal references in support of his decision.

Having now considered this Direction in detail, I must ask for an immediate and formal review of the Direction, for the following reasons:-

1. The Service Charter of NPAS fails to make clear that the right to record all proceedings is reserved to NPAS &/or its Adjudicators only – and it is reasonable for me to proceed on the basis of the precise words that are used in the Charter, and not on the basis of assertions that are now being offered, for whatever reason.

2. I have been denied all opportunity to offer formal representation at a Directions Hearing and Worcester City Council has been similarly denied all opportunity to make any case for itself at a Directions Hearing.

3. The Direction itself serves to offer some vague suggestion that I could be subjected to Contempt of Court proceedings if I should proceed to any assertion of my right to record the tribunal proceedings – this present ‘vague suggestion’ being offered to me at a date that is very much later than the date on which NPAS itself formally conceded that NPAS tribunals are not Courts of Law and Adjudicators are not judges.

4. Having now inspected the various regulations to which Mr Prickett has made reference, I can find no legal authority whatsoever for him to refuse the use of recording facilities, by me; by persons appointed to act for me &/or by any other appellant &/or their own appointed persons.

The ‘authority’ that is quoted within the Direction issued by Mr Prickett, and relevant to this last point, simply states that:-

‘The regulations, The Road Traffic (Parking Adjudicator’s)(England and Wales) Regulations 1999 do not authorize an Appellant to record the proceedings’ –

- to which ‘authority’ I must now respond by pointing out that these same regulations do not serve to deny to any appellant the right to record the proceedings.

I have made you aware of the fact that NPAS &/or the Adjudicators employed by NPAS are not ‘targets’ in the activity that I am undertaking in support of my own determination to defeat the ‘rogue’ legislation that has been and is being attempted by unworthy people (who neither understand our Constitution nor hold any true allegiance to it).

I have previously made Miss Curtin entirely aware of the fact that my purpose in seeking to record the process of your tribunal is to provide evidence to the Administrative Court that is entirely clear in its content and not altered in any way.

In view of the Direction that has now been issued by Mr Prickett (which direction now serves to deny to the Administrative Court a full access to the original material that is to be introduced and ‘argued’ at the tribunal itself), I must ask for a detailed review of this Direction, as indicated.

At a more personal level, I wish to record with you that the direction itself appears to offer nothing more than an entirely personal decision which has been entered into the proceedings without the benefit of proper and entirely normal debate on the issues involved for both myself and the City of Worcester - and without the benefit of any recognizable legal authority for such conduct.

No doubt you will be kind enough to confirm that A Full and Formal Review of Mr Prickett’s Direction will now be undertaken by NPAS, and I must ask you to advise me of the precise details of the process that will be undertaken for all purposes of achieving such a Review.

Before closing, I should mention that I have now spoken to the City of Worcester, and made the point that the NPAS tribunal will expect the City to offer the case for the RTA 1991, in contention with my own case that the Declaration of Rights is unalterable by Parliament and that the provisions of the Bill of Rights are being breached at this time.

I am assured that I can expect a telephone call from the Legal Department of Worcester, within a short time, for all purposes of establishing a good working relationship and liaison for all purposes of the hearing by the NPAS tribunal.

Finally, I should record with you that I am entirely aware of the fact that Mr Prickett will not be at all pleased to hear that I have required a Full and Formal Review of his Direction: It occurs to me that Mr Prickett may not now be the best person to preside over the impartial tribunal that is to hear my case?

Perhaps you will advise your own feelings in the matter of a suitably independent adjudicator – and further provide me with details of the rationale that you employ in any decision that you may reach?

The issues that are to be presented to the NPAS tribunal are Constitutional Issues that have a clear and present relevance to the several Authorities of the Crown; the Government & the Parliament of this Country – and you will understand that I have no wish to see ‘personal’ feelings become involved in the matter.

To my mind, there should be nothing at all that can serve to distract attention away from the supreme importance of the principal issues and I must ask for your help in making sure that the principal issues are proper addressed, without bias on the part of anyone at all, including the NPAS Adjudicator appointed to the tribunal.

Thank you for your time on the telephone this morning and for your attention to this present letter: I look forward to receipt of your detailed response at some early time.

Yours faithfully,

Robin de Crittenden.

Letter to Andrew Barfoot NPAS

2005-09-23T04:01:00.000-07:00

23rd September, 2005.

Mr Andrew Barfoot,
Tribunal Manager,
National Parking
Adjudication Service,
Level 6, By e-mail only:-
Barlow House, npas@parking-appeals.gov.uk
Minshull Street,
MANCHESTER.
M1 3DZ.

By e-mail only:-
npas@parking-appeals.gov.uk

Dear Mr Barfoot,

Re: Case Number WC49 – de Crittenden –v- Worcester City Council
Penalty Charge Notice WC00072143 – 26th June, 2003 –

Thank you for your letter of the 20th September, 2005, received yesterday.

NPAS Circulars.

I am concerned to receive your advice that the offending circular (05/05 of August, 2005) has been widely distributed to selected parties other than the DPE Councils: Your advice has made it even more apparent that NPAS has published suspect material to the prejudice of the general public and in violation of the independence that is claimed by NPAS.

This latest advice to me confirms that NPAS has subjected both Councils and Advisory-Organizations to an unsubstantiated & unwarranted suggestion that the High Court has both considered and upheld the Constitutional Status of the RTA 1991 (when measured against the provisions of the Declaration & Bill of Rights). You will understand that I must continue in my efforts to establish the purposes of NPAS in publishing material that is suspect & that remains unconfirmed; not least because of the fact that you are refusing to provide detailed information, in response to a perfectly normal request for such information.

This matter is very serious indeed, because NPAS has provided an official seal of approval to suspect material, by the widespread issue of the offending circular 05/05: Your response to the questions raised has been evasive and you will recognize that I must now ask you to provide an honest explanation for the NPAS bias that has been demonstrated.

To illustrate my own assertion that NPAS has been guilty of demonstrating a bias that is clearly against the public interest, I need do no more than point out to you that the very low index number allocated to the offensive circular now serves to reveal that NPAS has quite obviously failed to issue circulars that would have provided an equal amount of publicity to those tribunal-decisions that were resolved in favour of appellants, by NPAS Adjudicators -

– where it might be considered reasonable and ‘balanced’ for both DPE Councils and Appellant-advisory Services to measure the content of (and reasons for) such favourable decisions against the substance of intended claims; intended appeals &/or appeals-in-process.

Quite frankly, Circular 05/05 and your own letter to me have both served to confirm that NPAS has wandered very far indeed from its intended and oft-proclaimed purpose of providing an impartial service to the public.

That being said, and having now requested a further & honest explanation from you, I must move on to the further content of your letter, which serves to raise yet another point that is relevant to the claimed independence/impartiality of NPAS and its tribunal service.

Decision in Case No. SF 272.

As given previously, the content of this Appeal decision serves to suggest that the High Court has already decided that the present establishment of de-criminalised parking regimes (with NPAS Tribunals) does not breach the provisions of the Constitution.

Your letter provides that you are now refusing to provide me with any/all detailed information that would serve to give substance, if any, to the vague claims (&/or general inferences) of the Adjudicator in the Sefton Appeal -

- and at this point, I must remind you that in spite of the very obvious lack of legal information offered by the Adjudicator in the Sefton Case, you have seen fit to distribute his claims/inferences and final decision on a widespread basis, for whatever reasons of your own.

In view of the defensive attitude of NPAS that is now being demonstrated by your letter, I am forced to the conclusion that NPAS has become entirely aware of the fact that the High Court has rendered no decision of any kind that can be truly related to the Constitutional Status of the RTA 1991. In addition, I must suggest to you that by the wilful denial of the detailed information that I have formally requested - &/or by a present failure to concede that the remarks of the NPAS Adjudicator were not based on good and recorded law & precedent - you are now taking it upon yourself to act in a manner that is prejudicial to the impartial hearing of my own case.

I am determined that the provisions of our Constitution will not be undermined &/or side-stepped by unworthy politicians &/or by their foolish allies, and it is clear to me that by your refusal to provide me with the requested information (&/or some alternative admission of inaccuracy), you are confirming that NPAS is now aware that the Adjudicator’s decision in the Sefton Case is lacking in legal substance and accuracy, in spite of the fact that NPAS has published this case to the world at large.

In an attempt to clarify this untidy and sordid situation, and in order to prevent all/any reliance upon false statements made/inferred by any party &/or Adjudicator in any previous case, I must now ask you to appear and to give evidence yourself before the tribunal that is to consider my own appeal.

At the tribunal hearing, I will ask you to confirm whether or not you performed any check of any kind on the substance and accuracy of the legal opinion offered by the Sefton Adjudicator BEFORE you instructed/allowed the issue and distribution of Circular No 05/05 of August, 2005, to my prejudice –

AND I will ask you to confirm why it is that you have found yourself unable to provide me with full and detailed information regarding all/any Case-Law that would serve to give substance, if any, to the opinion offered by the Adjudicator in the Sefton Case (which opinion was thereafter distributed by you, or on your instructions, to the prejudice of an impartial hearing in my own case).

In formulating your response to my request that you now appear to give answers to my questions at my own hearing, I must ask you to consider that NPAS has laid claim to the promotion and maintenance of tribunals that have the status of Courts - and to further consider that HM Courts of Law regularly publish the entirety of legal argument presented to them (including full references to Case Law on both sides of any dispute), once decisions have been handed-down by these same Courts.

Under the circumstances, I think it reasonable for me to require that NPAS provide me with nothing less than the service provided by HM Courts of Law, and for you to appear as a witness in person to explain your decision that the services of NPAS will not match the services offered by HM Courts. At the bottom line, NPAS has taken it upon itself to publish and to circularize material that is suspect in its content and prejudicial to my case - and has refused to provide me with access to such material as would serve to reveal &/or to regularize a position that has an important effect upon me.

NPAS conduct has made it essential for me to provide against any adjudicator in my own case being tempted to rely upon the seemingly-unsupported opinion of the Sefton Adjudicator.

The NPAS seal of approval that has been attached to the results of the Sefton Case now renders it necessary for the adjudicator in my own case to hear the evidence that will serve to confirm whether or not the High Court has been allowed to consider the important Constitutional issues that have been raised (by the now-widespread challenge to the Constitutional Status of the RTA 1991).

The record will show that my own claim to adjudication is based upon my assertion that the RTA 1991 represents nothing more than an unlawful attempt at the enactment of law, and I regret to note that NPAS has elected to take the field against me in spite of the requirement that NPAS be impartial.

Please be kind enough to confirm your willingness to provide the entirety of the Case-Law information that I have previously requested &/or to offer full apology for the fact that the Sefton Adjudicator was mistaken in his claims (with a public retraction of the position taken by NPAS hitherto) &/or to attend as a witness at the tribunal appointed to hear my own case (and for the purpose of providing answer to the specified questions.

I look forward to receipt of the response that is now required from you.

Attendance of Worcester City Council.

I have confirmed with the Worcester City Council that a representative of this Council will attend at the tribunal and will present the Council’s evidence in person. It has been agreed on an informal basis that the Council will be represented by someone who is suitably qualified in both knowledge and law, and I have emphasized to a City representative that it is not my intention to cause difficulties of any kind for any representative of the City of Worcester.

Media Presence & Recording Facilities.

Your Coordinator, Miss Curtin, is fully aware of my requirement that the appointed Adjudicator grants permission for all such facilities prior to any appointment of the date; time and place for the requested tribunal.

Miss Curtin’s advice on these several points is now awaited and I will respond in an appropriate manner when I have received this advice: In the meantime, I have already advised Miss Curtin that all/any attempt to restrict the required facilities in any way will be subjected to appropriate challenge.

I feel sure of your agreement that NPAS &/or its Adjudicators can have no wish to hide anything at all from the general public and/or from the Administrative Court – and for my part, I am happy to provide my assurances that the hearing will be conducted with dignity and that my legal arguments are clear; brief and in the public interest.

I now await your required response.

Yours faithfully,

Robin de Crittenden.

Department for Transport...Parking

2005-09-20T08:13:00.000-07:00

Procedures to create parking places
Local authorities must go through a process called 'Procedure Regulations' before creating parking or traffic controls. The process usually involves:
consultation with local bodies and representatives;
advertising the proposal;
considering objections from the public;
deciding whether or not to make minor changes to the proposal;
holding an inquiry if necessary;
making the order;
advertising the order; and
implementing the order.
The Secretary of State follows similar procedures in relation to major national roads.

Controlled Parking Zones
A local authority can create Controlled Parking Zones (CPZs). A CPZ is an area in which there are parking restrictions indicated by means of yellow lines except where parking places are provided. Parking places are identified by use of white bays. Parking may be restricted to residents at certain times of the day or restricted to a certain time.
A CPZ is often used where there is a large demand for parking spaces from residents, shoppers or commuters. CPZs must have signs at their entrances and exits to tell drivers about the restrictions.
Two traffic orders may be needed to introduce a CPZ:
waiting and loading restrictions; and
parking places.
Single yellow lines in a CPZ that do not have their own specified restriction times operate at the same time as the CPZ.

Consolidation and minor orders 21.—(1) In this regulation—
(a) "consolidation order" means an order which—
(i) revokes provisions of one or more existing orders;
(ii) re-enacts those provisions without any change of substance, other than changes having one or more of the effects described in Part I of Schedule 4, and
(iii) has no other effect;

The Local Authorities' Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulation

2005-09-20T06:34:00.000-07:00

Read it here

How parking is managed (DFT)

2005-09-20T05:37:00.000-07:00

read it here

Decriminalised Parking Enforcement...Guidance by the Secretary Of State

2005-09-16T09:55:00.000-07:00

Read it here

Other Areas

2005-09-16T06:43:00.000-07:00

Lancashire

Tribunals

Bailiffs

Tribunal Service

Controlled Parking Zones

2005-09-15T09:23:00.000-07:00

As with most traffic management policies, CPZs are initiated through the adoption of Traffic Regulation Orders (TROs). The TRO issued by the local authority defines the terms and conditions of the scheme.
Read it here

Salford's CPZ

2005-09-15T09:05:00.000-07:00

Salford

Parking Places And Controlled Parking Zone
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Salford City Council propose to make an Order under Sections 1, 2, 4 and Part IV of Schedule 9 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984.
When the Order comes into effect The City of Salford (Parking Places and Controlled Parking Zone) Order 2002 will be amended in so far as it relates to the Schedule below.
A copy of the proposed Order together with a plan of the area and a statement of the Council's reasons for proposing to make the Order may be examined at the Legal Section, Salford Civic Centre, Chorley Road, Swinton, M27 5DA, between 8.30 a.m. and 4.30 p.m. Mondays to Fridays inclusive.
If you wish to object to the proposed Order you should send the grounds of your objection in writing to the Head of Law and Administration, Civic Centre, Chorley Road, Swinton, M27 5DA by the 6th day of March 2003 (quoting reference H/JLW/RTO/231).

Hackney CPZ

2005-09-15T08:54:00.000-07:00

Creating a CPZ...Hackney

Harrassment By Traffic Wardens?

2005-07-06T02:42:00.000-07:00

At 9.30am my vehicle pulled up in Frederick Street.

Within one minute a warden appeared at the window. As the rain was bouncing off the roof I decided to remain in the vehicle.

The conversation went something like this...
"Are you going to move?"
"No. I would like to put you on notice that you and other Wardens are harassing me."
"I am only doing my job"
"You are aware that there is no CPZ Order in place. The City Solicitor is also aware. Director of Regeneration, Phil Barrett is also aware. They are allowing you to continue to issue tickets in the knowledge that they are not backed by any legislative authority. This is harassment and they are involving you. I suggest you ask for sight of the legislation you are relying on before I begin any action."

At this point a supervisor was called.
He was also put on notice that a diary of the activities of the Wardens was being kept. He advised that they had to issue tickets otherwise they could lose their jobs. I made him aware that harassment was a criminal offence.
He stated, "I have asked to see the CPZ Order. No-one has been able to show it to me."

The ticket was issued and the supervisor was handed a copy (for his and the other Wardens information) of the letter which has gone off today to the City Solicitor, Bob Rayner.

Sunderland's Controlled Parking Zone...the Questions

2005-07-05T12:46:00.000-07:00

12 Frederick Street
Sunderland
SR1 1NA
29th June 2005

Mr. Bob Rayner,
City Solicitor,
City Solicitor’s Department
PO Box 100
Civic Centre
Sunderland
SR2 7DN

Dear Mr. Rayner,

There have been a number of serious developments since the last communication (copy e-mail enclosed) received from Christine Heslop from your office.

I understand that there has been one informal meeting with officials from NCP and more recently, on or around 21st June 2005, on a more formal basis with Kelvin Gilderoy of National Car Parks. Mr. Gilderoy informs me that minutes were taken. I understand that issues concerning myself were raised, and it was also confirmed to NCP that the parking regime that the City Council has in place was lawful and the correct legislative procedures had been followed.

Firstly, under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 I would like to have the full records of both meetings including the date, time and location and the officials present.

Secondly, this raises some very serious concerns should it be found to be the case that NCP have been given such reassurances, especially if certain council officials are fully aware that the correct legislative procedures have not been followed. I would like to know the name/s of the council official/s who advised that all the necessary legislation for the City Centre parking regime is in place, that the orders are in place and in force.

It is stated by Christine Heslop (in the e-mail attached) that, ‘The Director of Development and Regeneration confirms that Sunderland Council is operating a Controlled Parking Zone.’

The Sunderland Council website also states:

“The whole of Sunderland city centre has been designated a Controlled Parking Zone whereby:
A single yellow line indicates no waiting between 8.00am – 6.00pm, Monday to Saturday. Signs are located at each entry point to the city centre and because it is a controlled parking zone repetitive small yellow plates are not required within this area. This is the only controlled parking zone throughout the whole of Sunderland.
There is no requirement to sign double yellow lines, which indicates that the waiting restriction is “at any time”. Some streets will have these signs whereas some will not, but as signs are vandalised they will not be replaced.”

However, the legislation states, confirmed by the Department for Transport:

Every CPZ requires an act, order regulation, bylaw or notice ["the effect of a statutory provision"] to put in place the parking controls and give legal backing to the signs, [see TSRGD 200 page 414 Direction 7].

Therefore, for clarification in advance of further action, I would like copies and confirmation of the following:

1. For the record, can you confirm that Phil Barrett is the Director of Development and Regeneration referred to?

2. Could you please supply a copy of the Controlled Parking Zone Order, which allows you to operate a Controlled Parking Zone?

3. As direction 7 indicates, sign 663, the CPZ zonal sign requires an order or one of the other legal instruments listed to be enforceable. I would like copies of the orders, which were laid in order to erect the CPZ signs present on entering the CPZ, which you are leading the public to believe you are operating.

4. Confirmation that ALL the CPZ signs are correctly erected and correctly positioned. I will also require confirmation that the legislation states that incorrect signage invalidates any Order. I agree this is a moot point if there is no CPZ or CPZ zonal Orders in place.

5. Can you please direct me to the legislative authority that allows a CPZ to be operated with a Consolidated Order?

6. Confirmation that a Consolidated Order requires repetitive small yellow plates to be in place to validate any waiting restrictions.

It appears as though Sunderland City Council, or some of its officials are under the misapprehension that a Consolidated Order allows you to operate a CPZ.
If you are relying on the Consolidated Order for the enforcement of waiting restrictions then the majority of waiting restrictions are therefore improperly signed and are unenforceable or ‘not in force.’
I do believe that you have been aware of this for some time.
I am aware of appeals that have been allowed when such challenges, on grounds of incorrect signage or incorrect orders, have been allowed and yet the Parking Attendants continue to issue tickets to motorists in the same area without any change to the signage or orders.
Despite this fact you are still allowing NCP to unlawfully issue tickets and by refusing to act upon information, which has been brought to your attention could be seen by the courts to be conspiring to continue to act unlawfully. It could also be seen to amount to harassment under terms of the 1997 Protection from Harassment Act. The act makes it clear that a campaign of collective harassment by 2 or more people can amount to a “course of conduct”.

7. Again, under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, I would like the following: -

(i) The number of appeals that have been upheld when representations have been made to Sunderland Council / NCP.

(ii) The number of appeals to the adjudicator, NPAS and the number of appeals not contested / upheld.

(iii) I would also like details of the number of tickets that have been referred to the Bulk Traffic Enforcement Centre at Northampton County Court for the period the de-criminalised parking regime has been in place.

(iv) I would like details of how many Bailiffs’ Warrants have been issued for the same period.

(v) I would like details of the number of Bailiff’s Warrants actually served during this period.

(vi) I would like details of the number of tickets issued since the inception of the de-criminalised regime and the amount of monies received by Sunderland City Council and its agent NCP since the inception of the decriminalised regime.

8. I also wish to make a request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 for the details of the contract between Sunderland City Council and NCP.

9. Can you confirm that the correct implementation procedures were followed under The Local Authorities' Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996 in implementing Statutory Instrument 2002 No. 3266 The Road Traffic (Permitted Parking Area and Special Parking Area) (City of Sunderland) Order 2002 including details of which councillors were involved in the relevant committees; details of the minutes and recommendations of those meetings where the above order was approved; details of the necessary Public Notices inviting objections to the proposals and details of what checks were made to ensure that all signage was correct to ensure that the order could come into force and all previous orders were in force?

I do believe that there has been a serious case of maladministration, which because of the sums of money involved and the potential legal implications will require a full and detailed investigation.

I wish to put you on notice that I will be necessary to pursue Sunderland City Council for administration costs for dealing with each ticket issued unlawfully to my vehicle. I do believe that here are tens of thousands more whose monies will also have to be refunded.

I would be grateful therefore, for you to detail how you intend to address the situation.
I do believe that the legal department are already aware that the necessary orders and correct signage are not in place, and no doubt more serious matters may be brought to attention during the investigation.

For the record, I would be grateful if you would also forward details of your formal complaints procedure including details of making a complaint to the Local Government Ombudsman.

This correspondence will be copied to the Chief Executive and Leader of Sunderland City Council who have previously been made aware of the situation and to the Chief Executive of National Car Parks Ltd., Bob MacNaughton, who may now have commercial and legal reasons for initiating his own investigation.

I do believe that the District Auditor needs to be drawn into the correspondence, because of the implications of unlawful items in the Sunderland City Council accounts.

I appreciate that some items and information requested are of a detailed nature and the implications for the Council and its officials, and NCP, should legal proceedings be deemed necessary, could be costly and damaging.
It is with this in mind that a meeting is suggested involving some or even all of the parties, which may reduce the need to spend valuable taxpayers money future proceedings.

Yours sincerely,

Neil Herron

Cc. Ged Fitzgerald, Chief Executive, Sunderland City Council
Cc. Bob Symonds, Leader, Sunderland City Council
Cc. Bob Rayner, City Solicitor, Sunderland City Council
Cc. Phil Barrett, Director of Development and Regeneration, City of Sunderland.
Cc. Earl Belshaw, Parking Services, City of Sunderland.
Cc. Cameron Wardle, District Auditor, Audit Commission.
Cc. Bob MacNaughton, Chief Executive, National Car Parks Ltd.

Does Sunderland's Controlled Parking Zone Exist? Is there a Loch Ness Monster?

2005-07-05T12:30:00.000-07:00

Although photographs exist of its alleged presence as yet there is no official confirmation. The residents appear scared of its presence. Officials have yet to categorically confirm or deny its existence although a number of theories are being currently aired.
As for the Loch Ness Monster
...it has a positive effect ... actively encouraging people to visit the area!

Sent: 05 May 2005 16:17
Sent: Monday, May 16, 2005 2:25 PM

Subject: Sunderland Controlled Parking Zone

Dear Mrs. Heslop,

Further to our telephone conversation of Tuesday 3rd May 2005 I would be grateful for answers to the following questions:

Mr. Herron,

In answer to your queries -

1. Can you confirm that Sunderland City Council is operating a Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ) in the City Centre?
1. The Director of Development and Regeneration who organises the signing of traffic orders, confirms that this is the case.

2. Can you confirm your statement that a CPZ Order is not in place?
2. The traffic orders in place do not refer to a "Controlled Parking Zone" but there are statutory provisions which prohibit or restrict the waiting of vehicles.

3. I understand from Earl Belshaw that a 'twenty year old' CPZ Order is contained in the Consolidation Order. Can you confirm whether that this is or is not the case and provide me a copy of the relevant Consolidation Order along with the CPZ Order clearly marked?
3. The Consolidation Order has a schedule entitled "waiting restrictions" which contains details of all of the roads in the relevant area where waiting restrictions apply and the times they apply.

4. Can you confirm that a CPZ Order is negated if any of the signs detailing the zone are correct?
4. It would be up to the Parking Adjudicator, in the case of an unpaid Penalty Charge Notice to take into account any mitigating circumstances.

5. Information provided by the Department for Transport in their leaflet, "How Parking is Managed" under the 'Penalties and Payments' Section it states "Local Authorities have six months to collect unpaid parking penalties."
Can you confirm that this is correct?
5. There is no maximum period within which a Notice to Owner must be served (except that a debt is statute-barred after six years).

Regards - Christine Heslop

Sunderland City Council accept no liability for and shall not belegally bound by the contents of this E-Mail. No assurances are given as to the authority of the sender to act on its behalf.Please note that the content of e-mail sent and received may have to be disclosed by the Council in response to a request for access to information.

Find out more about e-Government within the City of Sunderland by visiting....Our new citizen-centric web site with online payments : www.sunderland.gov.ukFor the City of Sunderland story so far : www.sunderland.gov.uk/pathfinder

Academics Call for Quality, not Quantity, in Parking Enforcement Regimes

2005-07-05T07:15:00.000-07:00

UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM NEWS RELEASE
For immediate release: 5 July 2005

Academics Call for Quality, not Quantity, in Parking Enforcement Regimes

An independent report launched by the University of Birmingham today [Tuesday 5 July] urges local authorities to put customer service and public accountability at the heart of their parking enforcement regimes in order to address the growing public discontent that is so widely reported in the media.

This timely report argues that councils should apply to parking enforcement the same standards of professionalism and commitment to customer service that they now routinely practice in other regulatory areas such as planning, environmental health and licensing.

Simple improvements such as more face-to-face customer service desks, prompter responses to correspondence and higher standards of communication generally would make a big difference for many motorists wishing to challenge the councils’ actions.

Councils, and their contractors, should also improve their recruitment and retention practices for parking attendants to build up professionalism. The emphasis should be on encouraging quality in parking enforcement by attendants rather than the quantity of tickets issued. One solution is to join up parking enforcement with other street management functions, by developing teams of multi-functional street wardens to deal with issues such as graffiti, fly-tipping, abandoned vehicles, defects in street lighting, and other factors as well as parking infringements - this would encourage parking attendants to take more pride in their role.

A team from the University’s Institute of Local Government Studies (INLOGOV) carried out the six-month research project to investigate the very best practices in council-run parking enforcement. Six authorities were identified and nominated by peers as demonstrating high quality practices: Winchester; Hammersmith and Fulham; Manchester; Cambridge; Weymouth and Portland; and Sunderland.

Since the Road Traffic Act 1991, all London Boroughs and more than 100 other local authorities have taken on responsibility for parking enforcement from the police – many using private contractors for the front-line parking attendant work. Problems have often arisen where contracts have based payments on the numbers of tickets issued, resulting in zealous ticketing. The better way, as demonstrated in Manchester and Sunderland, is for contracts to incentivise ‘correct ticketing’ and the minimisation of enforcement decisions that end up becoming the subject of appeals.

Councils also need to raise their standards in dealing with appeals against tickets issued, with the report suggesting that local authority legal departments play a more prominent role in the process, to increase professionalism. Last year some 45% of appeals made by motorists to the independent parking adjudicators were allowed.

Finally, the report provides councils with a self-assessment method for evaluating the quality of their parking enforcement regimes, which takes account of the perceptions of local residents, businesses and motorists on the subject as well as quantitative and technical measures of performance.

Professor John Raine of the Institute of Local Government Studies, and lead investigator on the study, said: “In our analysis, high quality in parking enforcement is achieved when there is both good compliance with the parking regulations and also public support. Too often councils have been pursuing rigorous enforcement without that vital ingredient of public support. There is much more that can be done to improve communication and build public confidence in the purposes and integrity of the process.

“We hope that local authorities will use the self-assessment method that we have devised in the report to evaluate their current parking regimes and identify the priorities for improvement in their particular areas. The six good-practice councils that were examined in some detail in the study provide many valuable lessons for other local authorities and contractors, and we hope that the research hastens the pace of change for the better.”

Commenting on the report’s findings, NCP Chief Executive Bob Macnaughton, who sponsored the report, said: “NCP welcomes this move to drive the industry forward by defining quality and raising standards in parking enforcement. NCP supports national standards of excellence and we hope that the best practice set out in this report will soon become normal practice all over the country.”

ENDS
Notes to Editors:
The report, entitled Local Authority Parking Enforcement: Defining Quality – Raising Standards, by John W Raine, Eileen Dunstan and Theresa Alexandra Parry from the University of Birmingham’s Institute of Local Government Studies, is priced £25 and is available from The Publications Unit, School of Public Policy, University of Birmingham, Birmingham B15 2TT

The report was commissioned and sponsored by NCP.

The British Parking Association (BPA) has commissioned a parallel review of the whole policy and legal framework for decriminalised parking enforcement, which is being undertaken by Richard Childs QPM and which is to be launched later this month.

Parking Enforcement Facts:
Local authorities were given powers to undertake their own parking enforcement measures under the Road Traffic Act 1991.

The 33 London boroughs were first to introduce their own parking enforcement measures in 1995, and since then the number of other authorities following suit across England and Wales has been steadily rising.

Some councils run their own in-house parking enforcement services while others use private contractors – the largest companies being: NCP; ACPOA; Control Plus; and Legion Parking.

The School of Public Policy
The University of Birmingham’s School of Public Policy is the largest centre for the applied study of public policy and management in Europe with more than one hundred academic staff from a wide range of disciplines and backgrounds. The School is continually engaged with practitioners in the public and voluntary sectors at local, regional, national, and international levels, operating in the vanguard of research on the development of public services. The School wins more commissioned social science research from central and local government and the health service than any other university in the UK. Five specialist departments make up the School, one of which is the Institute of Local Government Studies (INLOGOV), where the particular specialism is local governance and public service management. Throughout its forty-year history, the Institute has been playing a leading role in shaping policy in local government and in developing management practice in local authorities.

The report’s authors
John Raine is Professor of Management in Criminal Justice and Director of the School of Public Policy Graduate School. He has some twenty-five years of’ experience in research and consultancy on judicial systems, local government and public management. He is author of three books and numerous articles on aspects of public management and the administration of justice. He has recently completed a research project on the users’ perspective of the National Parking Adjudication Service and has completed previous studies on parking enforcement for the Lord Chancellor’s Department and the London Parking Appeals Service.

Eileen Dunstan is a Research Fellow in the Institute of Local Government Studies, School of Public Policy. She has worked on a wide variety of public policy research projects. Her previous work with John Raine has included, a study of the enforcement of financial penalties in Magistrates’ Courts in England and Wales for the Home Office, the impact of the National Automated Fingerprint Identification System (NAFIS) on the police use of fingerprint evidence (with Morgan, Harris, Burrows), a review of Restorative Justice intervention for the Youth Justice Board and, most recently, a review of the National Parking Appeals Service.

Theresa Alexandra Parry is a lecturer at the University of Birmingham, deputy director and programme manager for MSc programmes in clinical neuropsychiatry and mental health for older adults respectively. Originally a biochemist, she then trained as a barrister and was called to the bar in 1999. She joined the University in 2001, and for three years worked as a policy analyst for the West Midlands Local Criminal Justice Board. Previously she has lectured in law at Stratford on Avon College and for the Open University.

Further information:
Rachel Robson – Press Officer, University of Birmingham
tel: 0121 414 6681 / mob: 07789 921165 / email: r.a.robson@bham.ac.uk

Is an Excess Charge a Penalty?

2005-07-01T03:02:00.000-07:00

Sunderland's Parking Area Order ...initiating the decriminalised regime

[5] S.I. 1999/1918. back

(6) In this section "additional parking charges" means penalty charges, charges made by the parking authority for the removal, storage and disposal of vehicles and charges for the release of vehicles from immobilisation devices fixed under section 69 of this Act."

Legislation to Create the Decriminalised Parking Regime in Sunderland

2005-07-01T02:21:00.000-07:00

Statutory Instrument 2002 No. 3266
The Road Traffic (Permitted Parking Area and Special Parking Area) (City of Sunderland) Order 2002

Can be viewed here