May 2008 29

Daylight robbery6

Can anyone tell me why this is anything other than a crime?

Some councils have earned hundreds of thousands of pounds by enforcing unlawful traffic and parking restrictions, the BBC has learned.

Fines are said to have been levied despite incorrect road markings and on parking bays which are too small.

Councils have been levying charges and fines that are simply not legal – and it looks as though the amount could run into the millions. Haringey, Sheffield and Camden alone have unlawfully taken at least £715,000.

You want to know the worst part? London Councils don’t even seem to think there’s anything wrong with that.

Nick Lester from London Councils, which represents authorities in the capital, argued that handing the cash back was not necessarily in the public interest.

He said: "Where there’s only a technical error, a small issue, where no-one was genuinely misled, the council can take the view, is it really a good use of public money to repay the penalty?

"Is that really what they should be doing?"

Mr Lester* should take a swift lesson in the law. It’s not "public money" being used to repay people, it’s a question of giving back the money councils wrongly extorted from them. The distinction about it supposedly being "only a technical error" is also false; the law, especially when it comes to levying fines and road regulations, has to be specific and it has to be followed properly or else it means nothing. Something is either a crime or it’s not – if it’s not a crime then you can’t fine them. Fining the innocent isn’t a technical error, it’s a total injustice.

If it’s true that some councils continued charging fines even after they discovered they had no legal right, heads should roll and criminal investigations should follow.

The article is also very revealing about the flaws in the National Parking Adjudication Service (NPAS). Instead of insisting councils go back through their records to repay every fine they illegally charged, they recommend motorists to appeal their fine if they think it was unjust. It’s amazing that even the Chief Parking Adjudicator recognises that the system is weighted to deter people from appealing:

she said that many motorists would not want to take the risk of taking their case to tribunal because it would mean losing their 50% discount – and that the onus was on local authorities to put things right.

This has lifted the lid on a serious problem. Councils can’t be allowed just to decide what should be a crime and what shouldn’t, and they must not be allowed to just flout the law like this. It’s completely wrong that there is a penalty for appealing, too – especially considering that 60% of appeals succeed, which suggests that wrongly levied fines are endemic.

*You can contact Nick Lester here to put him right, should you wish: [email protected]

Related Posts

  • Hardeep_Singh

    Sounds like Sovetization….. Councils are here to serve not to help themselves to our pockets whenever they feel like it. Justice is justice and I recall her being blindfolded i.e. without prejudice so why are councils being afforded the luxury of exemption? For some people a traffic fine is not an inconvienence but a real setback on their already stretched monthly finances.

  • Mandy Worrall

    No chips for me please, I’m on a diet!
    Regarding the Orwellian Plymouth Council idea of ‘rub a chip – swipe a fee waste disposal’: Does this mean they will use a bio chip, placed under the nominated persons skin to ensure any trashy behaviour is monitored at all times? Does it mean that if the bin monitor trips over the cat, no one else is allowed to empty it? Perhaps we are supposed to eat the rubbish that won’t fit! Bloody big mouthful.
    The population just cannot and should not take this crap any more. Perhaps the poor saps (who having been forced to disclose their medical data) as drones for the express purpose of taking out government trash, could get off the hook by stating their registration is for ‘entertainment purposes only’, OR, just maybe this is the governments’ way of holding on to sensitive medical records without actually putting it in the bin personally.

  • Graeme Pirie

    Surley Nick Lester is guilty of inciting criminal activity by telling council to hang onto the money??
    In any other job that would surely be grounds for dismissal at the very least. Anyone know who he works for?

  • Johnbluk

    Not sure this has anything to do with “Sovetization” or even the Soviets, perhaps I sense a soupsong of McCarthy-ism however…
    It is unfortunate that motorists have to appeal, and even go much farther, to get their money back. But the positive side to this, is that it empowers people to enforce their legal rights, especially where local councils often, knowingly, break the law.
    as the item states..
    “Caroline Sheppard, Chief Parking Adjudicator for the tribunal in England and Wales, said motorists should appeal if they believe they have been wrongly fined…
    Figures show that last year 60% of all appeals outside London were successful: 32% were not contested by councils and 28% were won by motorists. In London in the year to March 2007, 68% of appeals were successful. ”
    I notice the dept. of transport keeps it’s hands nice and clean over this one, however, folks can checkout their information and links below for starters.
    How parking is managed…
    http://www.dft.gov.uk/transportforyou/roads/howparkingismanaged?page=1
    http://www.parkingandtrafficappeals.gov.uk/
    http://www.parking-appeals.gov.uk/
    “Three things are certain in this life – death, taxes, and parking fines”
    ;0]

  • cw

    Why arn’t the police investigating these criminal councils and their criminal employees with a view to possible prosecution and, if found guilty, to implementing substantial, personal fines?

  • Richard Garland

    I would have to refer Mr Nick Lester to the Theft Act of 1968 – and in particular this little gem….
    Dishonestly retaining a wrongful credit.
    24A. — (1) A person is guilty of an offence if—
    (a)a wrongful credit has been made to an account kept by him or in respect of which he has any right or interest;
    (b)he knows or believes that the credit is wrongful; and
    (c)he dishonestly fails to take such steps as are reasonable in the circumstances to secure that the credit is cancelled.
    Yes – it appears to be against the law.