The latest issue of The ParkingTicket
newsletter
Previous issues can be viewed via http://www.parkingticket.co.uk/ca.html#
PARKING TICKET NEWS August2004
This month:
1. Illegal signs in Haringey
2. Out of time response from Westminser
3. Private parking tickets
4. Discounted payments - a contrary view
5. Future of site looks assured
1. Illegal signs in Haringey.
For a number of months I have
received a steady trickle of complaints about misleading
signing in respect of CPZ signs in the Green Lane area in
the London borough of Haringey. Confusion arises in bays
that allow parking by both permit holders and those who buy
a ticket from a machine.
For permit holders the bays
operate seven days a week and extend until 10pm. But those
purchasing a ticket may only park Mondays to Saturdays between
8am and 6.30pm. Many visitors have been ticketed for parking
after 6.30pm and on Sundays because of the confusing signing.
I was recently contacted by
Charles Jarman who kindly sent me pictures of one of the
signs in question. I have posted a copy of the picture on
the website together
with the corrected version courtesy of Buchanan Computing’s
Signplot software.
Charles was himself ticketed
and following my advice is in the process of challenging
it. If you hear of anyone who has been similarly ticketed
in Haringey please tell them to do the same.
I contacted Haringey council
who said that they would investigate. I was unable to get
an assurance that those unfairly ticketed would receive a
refund!
Got a parking ticket?
We can help www.ticketbusters.co.uk
2. Out of time response from
Westminster.
Generally speaking councils
can take as long as they like in responding to motorists’ representations.
However, where they either clamp or remove a vehicle they
must respond within 56 days or the case is lost and the motorist’s
money must be refunded.
Ian Prideaux was clamped on
a single yellow line in Covent Garden in October last year.
The council's view was that he was in a residents' bay without
a permit. According to Ian although it was signed as a residents’ bay
it also had an old yellow line still marked inside it.
Wisely he took photos showing
the yellow line extending the length of the car but Westminster
refused to accept that the markings were misleading. However,
although the formal notice of rejection was posted on the
57th day after receipt of Ian’s representation they
would not accept it was late so he went to appeal.
Ian won the appeal on the grounds
of the misleading markings. The lateness of the rejection
was not considered. However the Parking and Traffic Appeals
Service (PATAS) confirmed that the rejection must be received
within the 56 days and not just posted within that time.
Despite many calls and letters
it then took him six weeks to get a refund out of Westminster. “The
adjudicator had directed the Council to refund me ‘forthwith’.
My dictionary says this implies immediacy, with no excuses
for delay,” said Ian. “My complaints to first
the parking department, then the finance department and finally
the Chief Executive went unheeded. So I complained to the
Local Government Ombudsman.”
Westminster replied to the
Ombudsman offering apologies on behalf of the Parking Dept
(but not the Chief Executive) and an offer of compensation
of £60. “This was made up of a mixture of fixed
amounts per unanswered letter, a sum for inconvenience and
crucially £5 for the one day which they consider they
were late in refunding the money,” said Ian. “This
hinges on the Adjudicator directing a refund ‘forthwith’ and
saying below ‘you should receive this within 28 days’”.
Westminster took the view
that they had 28 days to pay up and started counting from
the day they say they got official notification from PATAS
- 7 days after the hearing. Ian has written to the Ombudsman
to say that he considered they were 21 days late (having
allowed 8 as a generous interpretation of ‘forthwith’)
and suggesting that after multiplying this number by £5
and adding the fixed sums they had offered, the right figure
was £160!
This shows that even where
deadlines for action are laid down in the legislation councils
put their own interpretation on what they can and cannot
do. They probably get away with it in over ninety percent
of cases, but Ian is a redoubtable campaigner and Westminster
has come ‘unstuck’ this time!
Got a parking ticket?
We can help www.ticketbusters.co.uk
3. Private Parking Tickets.
Last month I received three
enquiries from motorists who had been ticketed by companies
issuing private parking tickets. Such companies are increasingly
being employed by supermarkets, retail parks and railway
companies to manage their car parks.
Mark Hancock collected a passenger
from Reading Station. Because the passenger was waiting for
him he did not even turn his engine off. As he drove away
he noticed someone taking a photograph of him. Some weeks
later he received a letter from OPC Ltd which said "Despite
an offer for you to pay a reduced penalty of £40.00
within 14 days of issue of the private parking ticket, as
stated on both the parking ticket you received and the Terms
and Conditions displayed at the OPC Area, you have not done
so."
Private companies are able
to obtain, for a fee, keepers’ details from DVLA. They
then write to the registered keeper demanding payment. If
payment is not forthcoming they increase the fine and threaten
court action. The basis for their demands is usually that
the unsuspecting motorist has parked in a private area without
displaying an authorised permit. But in this case no ticket
was issued and the vehicle only stopped long enough to pick
up a waiting passenger – hardly ‘parking’.
Companies are reluctant to enter into discussion over the
validity of tickets and if there is a contact phone number
it is likely to be charged at a premium rate. By threatening
increases in the size of the fine and court action they know
that the majority of motorists will pay up to avoid the hassle.
But for those with the stomach
for a fight it is possible to challenge such companies and
win. Last year I reported the case of Roy and Angela Norris
who went to Manchester Airport to collect their children.
Roy purchased a pay-and-display ticket and fixed it to the
windscreen of their car. Within half an hour they returned
to the vehicle and were shocked to find a parking ticket
under the wiper blade. The car park attendant was close by
so Roy asked him why the ticket had been issued. He said, “Because
there was no ticket displayed.” When he pointed to
the ticket on the windscreen the attendant refused to discuss
the matter further.
Angela phoned Excel Parking
on their 50p per minute premium rate number to complain and
was asked to send in the pay-and-display ticket. She kept
the original but sent in a copy and asked for the penalty
notice to be cancelled. Excel wrote back saying “…we
feel that the Notice was correctly issued. The car park attendant
has stated on his records that all the windows were checked
and there was no sign of a ticket.” The letter went
on to demand £60 within seven days with the threat
of court proceedings if payment was not received.
Following legal advice Angela
wrote to Excel Parking again but heard nothing for several
months when Excel sent a ‘Notice to Debtor of Intent
to Issue Court Proceedings.’ This time payment of £100
was demanded within seven days with the threat of interest
accruing and a further £70 in court fee and solicitor’s
costs if payment was not received. Angela acknowledged receipt
of the Notice and said that she looked forward to meeting
them in court!
By the time that the case
came to court the charges had been further increased to £178.
Angela said that on the day of the hearing they felt like
lambs being led to slaughter. The judge said that the Norris’s
papers were relevant to their defence whereas Excel had only
one page out of their 26 sheets that was relevant. Comparing
the car park attendant’s signature on the penalty notice
with those on the court documents, which he was supposed
to have signed, he thought they looked different.
The judge turned on the Excel
representative and tore strips off him, according to Angela.
He even said that Trading Standards might be interested in
the 50p per minute phone charges. She said that the judge
also criticised Excel for being unable to produce a witness
as the car park attendant no longer worked for them.
“Oh my did we feel good,” said
Angela. “At last justice was done - after nearly two
years - what a load off our minds. It was a lot of hassle
but I am glad that I did not let this company rip me off!”
Angela said that she hoped
that her success would give encouragement to others to challenge
private parking tickets – particularly those issued
by Excel Parking Ltd!
4. Discounted Payments - a contrary view.
Last month I suggested that
if a council was to demand full payment of a parking fine
because the cheque for the discounted rate had arrived late
motorists should write back saying that if the council was
not prepared to accept the cheque and close the case then
it should either return the cheque, or make a refund so that
a formal representation could be made after receiving a Notice
to Owner.
MD of 0800handyman Ltd, Bruce
Greig, contacted me to say that he thought that this was
not a good idea. “The approach Kensington & Chelsea
take is to accept the part-payment, take this as an admission
of liability and pursue you for the full amount,” he
says. “Having made a payment, it is (legally) hard
to then dispute the ticket, and you may end up having to
pay the full amount. At least, that is our experience (with
RBK&C, and I'm sure Westminster and Camden would adopt
the same approach; other councils may be more lenient).”
Bruce says: “If you've
missed the deadline, and are dealing with a nasty council,
my advice would be to appeal as by then you have nothing
to lose.”
5. Future of site looks assured.
A couple of issues ago I appealed
for anyone interested in taking over the site to contact
me. Three people responded and I am confident that any one
of them would have made an excellent job in carrying on the
work of the site. Following discussions with each of the
parties I have asked Paul Pearson to take over the site with
effect from 1st August.
Paul has been in touch with
me over various issues and it was he who, last year, drew
my attention to the inadequacy of zone entry signs in Westminster.
He has both a good understanding of the rules and regulations
governing the issue of PCNs and also a passion to fight for
motorists who have been incorrectly ticketed by over zealous
traffic wardens keen to meet their targets.
His campaign against various
councils has had a number of notable successes including
new signs now being erected throughout Westminster and areas
of Camden, the changing of signage in areas of Swiss cottage,
the disciplining of several parking attendants and, he feels
that, his many letters to central government may have been
instrumental in the introduction of the new Traffic Management
Bill. He is currently working on ways to help companies save
millions of pounds a year in parking fines.
Although I still feel fit enough
to carry on I thought that it would be a good idea to hand
over to Paul now so that I could assist and advise him for
as long as he wanted and I was able.
And finally...
If you have any stories that
you think might be of interest to others please let me have
them. If you know anybody who you think might be interested
in this newsletter please forward it to them.
Many thanks
John Squires
The Parking Doctor
parkdoc@parkingticket.co.uk
To get future newsletters delivered
directly to your mailbox send a blank e-mail to parkingticket-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
Got a parking ticket?
We can help www.ticketbusters.co.uk |
