Name and Shame UK
We expose the dirty deedsters
Devious Parking Attendants boost Bexley council coffers
Vigilante writes ...
Imagine this scenario:
An 79-year-old lady, the Senior Warden of her church, arrives at her church one Tuesday morning at 10:30 to help the mothers and toddlers group who use one of the church halls. She does this every Tuesday morning.
All the roads in the area have a parking restriction which operates between 10:00am and noon because they are close to the local railway station. The yellow lines were Bexley Council's answer to the problem caused by commuters who parked their cars all day while they went to their jobs in London. But that stopped house-owners parking outside their own homes unless they hired one of the bays subsequently installed by the council. The charge for this privilege? £25 per annum - a nice little earner for the council. Yet nowhere near the bounty produced by hiring Vinci Park (formerly Sureway Parking) to patrol the borough and swoop on anyone who disobeyed the diktat's new anti-parking regulations.
Naturally, the council insist their parking wardens do not swoop on people - they are merely employed to keep the traffic flowing. What rubbish! I have watched them in action (see the article on illegal parking bay withdrawal) - they hide in doorways until owners have left their vehicles, then they pounce.
And so it was with our old lady. Every other Tuesday morning it wouldn't be a problem because the church has its own off-road car park. This particular Tuesday, one of the mothers had completely blocked access to the car park by leaving her 4x4 in the entrance instead of putting it in a bay. However, this is a problem that can be quickly resolved by locating the vehicle's owner and asking her to move her car.
With no other roads in the area free of this council-imposed parking restriction, our old lady leaves her car for a second and nips across the car park to call for help to get the car moved. At the same time, two traffic wardens appear and ticket her car. The PCN confirms that the time between observation and penalty was just one minute so there was no grace period allowed to check if the driver was loading or collecting a passenger, even though the driver was always in view not 30-feet away from the wardens.
But that's irrelevant to employees of profit motivated companies like VinciPark. The wardens have done their dirty deed by the time the old lady rushes back to her car. If, as the council say, their purpose is to keep traffic flowing, they could have said something the minute our lady got out of her car. But no, they hid in their car until the victim left the vehicle and then they pounced. It's their standard modus operandi in Bexley Borough.
But our lady explains the circumstances and states that she had no other choice. In a non-authoritarian climate, a reasonable enforcement officer would understand the circumstances and rip up the ticket. But here we have two problems: once the ticket has been written, it cannot be torn up (according to the wardens); secondly, traffic wardens can never be compared with reasonable people. They are trained to issue as many tickets as they possibly can, using whatever devious techniques they can employ, just so that the council (and VinciPark, in this case) can makes lots of extra dosh.
But, there is a small ray of light. It appears the traffic warden may possess just a glimmer of humanity. She says she will make a note of the circumstances in her pocket book so that the PCN can be rescinded when our lady makes her appeal. [Remember this - it becomes important later in the story]
An informal appeal is lodged within the hour. It is rejected four days later.
This can only mean one of two things: either the warden lied when she said the ticket would be rescinded on appeal and didn't make an exception report in her notebook, or her report was ignored by the person who adjudicated.
The notice of rejection was followed up by a very angry email to the Parking Manager, Mrs Tina Brooks, requesting that the adjudicator's name and job title be revealed as the signature on the rejection notice was undecipherable. Without proof of authority, the notice could have been issued by a junior clerk in the traffic office with no experience of adjudication procedures. The request was ignored.
All email correspondence was also copied to Mrs Brooks' superior, Graham Ward - who operates under the grandiose title of Head of Technical and Customer Services. He let Brooks deal with most of the queries but he did answer some questions about staffing levels and competence levels. These alone were quite interesting:
- 25 Parking Attendants (traffic wardens) are employed by VinciPark to cover Bexley Borough.
- Bexley Council employ 1 Parking Manager, 3 Parking Officers and 13 Parking Assistants - all of which appear to be supervisory positions.
- All parking staff are fully trained in the statutory process, etc. Some have completed relevant City & Guilds as well as internal and external training courses.
Two further emails were sent to Brooks and Ward asking for the traffic warden and the adjudicator to be identified, and to state if the warden actually submitted a circumstantial report and, if so, why it was ignored by the adjudicator. Both emails were were ignored.
Eventually a Notice to Owner was issued and the remaining options were to pay the fine or make a formal representation. The seven valid reasons for lodging an appeal did not include situations where ...
- a traffic warden lied and/or gave false or misleading information
- the parking management team refused to provide information that could be used to defend an appeal
So the form of representation had to be used to request that the appeal be sent straight to the independent adjudicator appointed by the Parking and Traffic Appeals Service.
And that's where it stands at the moment. Watch this space!!
Latest news ...
You are allowed 28 days to make the formal representation and this one was submitted with 25 days to spare. The next communication from the council was a Charge Certificate issued on the grounds that no formal representation had been received by the council. How strange that a form that had been returned well within the prescribed time limits in a pre-printed envelope supplied by the council did not reach them. Makes you wonder how many similar envelopes Royal Mail fail to deliver, doesn't it? Or could it be that Bexley Council's work is so much simpler if they can dispense with the due processes of law?
So a pretty hot email was fired off to let the council know their action was considered as a very cheap trick. Attached was a scanned copy of the representation they claimed not to have received but apparently this was not acceptable as the submission did not fall within the seven allowable parameters. The council conveniently overlooked the fact that you are allowed to appeal on other grounds by law and they are obliged to take your evidence into consideration.
Again the council outlined the options available at this stage: pay the inflated fine, wait for them to obtain an Order for Recovery, or write a letter containing the representations. The latter option was chosen and the letter was written immediately and sent by recorded delivery. A scanned copy was also sent by email.
The very next day, our lady received the Notice of Rejection of Formal Representation together with a supposed photocopy of two pages from the parking attendant's notebook and black and white photocopies of the photographs the attendant took at the 'crime' scene. The notes contained no reference to the conversations that actually took place - just a comment supposedly made by our lady. Incredibly this contained a double-negative, quote: "I can't deal with no more." Our lady never ever speaks like that!
One of the photographs was extremely useful because it clearly showed that the yellow line was not continuous as it should be by law. The other photograph showed that the parking attendant was not wearing her uniform hat - another breach of the regulations. An email from the Parking Manager also revealed that the original adjudication had been done by a Parking Assistant - the lowest level in the parking hierarchy. But the person's identity was not revealed. Why not? Are the council running some sort of covert operation?
(Click thumbnails for more images)
Although the yellow lines in question were repainted some time after the alleged infringement, further investigation shows that many of the yellow lines in the borough do not meet the prescribed regulations. In some cases, they have not been repainted two years after roads have been dug up and resurfaced; in others, lines are not terminated with a T-bar, T-bars are missing where double and single lines meet, and in many cases it is impossible to tell whether the lines are supposed to be singles or doubles. Given that huge revenue is generated from parking fines, it is clear that little of this money is ploughed back into ensuring that the road markings are clear and legal.
But the greater implication is that many, many motorists have been fined for parking in areas where the illegality of the road markings may invalidate the Special Parking Area Order granted to the borough by the government. If this is so, many victims have been fraudulently fined and the council should repay all monies they extracted.
Bexley Council have been challenged in writing on all these counts and further developments are awaited ...
Update
Bexley Council refused to communicate on these issues so the appeal has been taken to the Parking and Traffic Appeals Service for independent adjudication. We now await a hearing date and will report back later.
However, the matter was put before two local councillors before the appeal was submitted. The one who answered - Councillor Simon Windle - tried to opt out (a) because the confidentiality flag was set inadvertently on my email message and (b) because councillors are not allowed by law to intervene in parking infringements. When I pointed out that the whole point of raising the issue was not to seek help to overturn the ticket but to ask him to investigate the deeper issues of illegally punishing motorists purely to increase revenue, he passed the matter to Bexley's cabinet member for transport - Councillor Peter Craske.
Craske already knew about this website and made it clear he didn't like our attempts to expose devious council practises though he preferred to refer to it "as making insulting comments about council employees." How strange that council employees find it insulting if someone tries to make them accountable or expose the truth. They want to snoop and interfere in almost every aspect of our lives but they don't like to hear the truth about themselves. Amazing!!
Craske also went on to make other wild accusations and incorrect assumptions and totally failed to concede or explain the council's shortcomings or those of the parking attendants whose word is always to be believed over the motorist. He refused to supply any of the major information I had requested and, though Cllr Windle passed my request under the Freedom of Information Act to Bexley's Communications Officer, Mr John Ferry, there has been no acknowledgement or response from him.
I did reply to Craske's email but it was too late - he'd already taken his bat and ball home! It's beginning to prove my point that Bexley's Tory councillors are no better than their labour predecessors.
Further update on FOI Request
Freedom of Information requests have to be answered with 20 working days. Whichever way you look at it, even in the extravagantly over-staffed public sector, that still equates to four weeks. But, as the words "work" and "public sector" do not fit comfortably together, working days probably take no account of days when no work is actually done. And, from one of our sources, it appears that many Bexley employees spend most of the working day playing Solitaire on their computers or just larking around. So this may explain why the response to my FOI request actually took 76 working days! Even more amazing was the fact that the letter from Bexley's Freedom of Information Officer, John Grosvenor, was a Public Interest Refusal Notice under Section 22 of the Act - the grounds being that the council was not compelled to provide any information prior to the appeal submission as it would be outside the statutory process.
As far as I can tell in Bexley's case, the Statutory Process - a term they use often - is a law, rule or regulation they twist to suit their own purposes. But the letter went on to explain that 'requests for information not related to the PCN should be directed to ... yes, you've guessed it ... Councillor Peter Craske - the man who ignores my correspondence. It further says that my "request will not be fulfilled" so that sounds like I would be wasting my time and that the 20 working days, already having extended to 76 working days, will now be extended to infinity.
So much for Bexley's official slogan: Listening to you, working for you, delivering value.
Editorial comment:
Traffic wardens, parking attendants, civil enforcement officers (or whatever they want to call themselves) are actually used by some local authorities to keep the traffic flowing smoothly. They watch for possible breaches and try to prevent infringements by warning the motorists and giving them a chance to avoid a penalty notice.
Bexley Borough is not one of these caring authorities! Their enforcers use covert methods like hiding in shop doorways to ensure that the scam is perpetuated, even when their actions are illegal - (you must read the article on illegal parking bay withdrawal.)
As for Mr Ward's claim that parking staff are trained to City and Guilds standards, I have to ask, in what subject? In practice, some of the wardens I've spoken to would be lucky to pass the 11-plus when they are over 21. But then why would any intelligent person want to join the ranks of the most despised body in the land?
The staffing hierarchy is also a bit worrying. In the last job I had before retirement, one manager and three supervisors were responsible for 40-plus in-house staff and 50 or 60 contractors. That's one supervisor for every 25 subordinates and they coped admirably. But Bexley Council have 17 supervisors for 25 'foot soldiers'! That's one and a bit each. No wonder council taxes are so high.
Meanwhile, if Bexley residents or visitors come across a parking attendant with the designation of BL343, don't believe a word she says. The BL obviously stands for 'Bl**dy Liar'!
If a warden tells you he or she will make a note in his of her notebook, insist on seeing what he or she has written, make a note of the page numbers and get the notebook reference number. This will at least ensure that the records cannot be tampered with before the authority submits its evidence to the adjudicator who works for the independent appeals authority.
Top Tip
Wherever you live or work, if you've been trapped by a sneaky Civil Enforcement Officer (aka Traffic Warden) and been forced to donate to your local authority's ill-gotten gains check first that the parking restriction was valid. All the information you need can be found at http://www.parkingappeals.co.uk. More information is shown on our links page.
The BBC are on the case
Anyone who has watched BBC Breakfast TV during the last two days (29/30th May 2008) will have seen reports from all around the UK showing that many councils are fining motorists illegally for "infringements" spotted in parking zones that are, in fact, illegal themselves. This, of course, proves once again that parking restrictions have nothing whatsoever to do with improved traffic flow or safety - they are designed solely to provide millions of pounds of additional revenue; another form of "highway robbery"!
And this illicit enrichment plan is likely to get worse under the new CCTV regulations if councils adopt the same dirty tricks as the London Borough of Lambeth. They are manipulating CCTV recordings to make the circumstances seem worse than they actually are - in other words, they are deliberately fabricating evidence!
One motorist - Jonathan Greatorex - has appealed successfully against a PCN and has been awarded costs, though Lambeth Council have so-far failed to pay up in the specified time. Read the story for yourself on http://www.greatorex.org/lambethparking. Be sure to read all the content because one page - http://www.greatorex.org/lambethparking/the_stakeout.htm - is really amusing. Jonathan's photographic evidence shows how Lambeth's parking attendants earn their money. They sit in camera cars reading the newspaper!!!
And you wondered why council taxes were so high??
Visitors' Comments
The first comment, from Tony of Gravesend, was received at 10:45pm on 7th May, 2005. He searched on Google for 'parking bexley' and obviously didn't like our report. However, we have published his comment verbatim as everyone is entitled to an opinion ...
"Having read the above letter it is quite obvious this man doesn't know what hes talking about. As a car driver of 40 years I have never had a ticket or a bad experience with traffic wardens anywhere including bexley. I don't park illegally and don't sympathise with people that do whether for one minute or ten. this man obvioulsly doesn't realise what yellow lines are for they are for ambulances and fire engines etc and are to keep the roads flowing.
The T bars and whether the warden wears a hat or not is irrelevant it is clear from your statement the old lady knew she had parked on a yellow line broken or otherwise.
As you stated the woman in the 4x4 caused this problem perhaps she should pay the ticket that's why we need wardens otherwise the roads would be blocked solid.
You should be ashamed of yourself and so should the old lady for not paying the fine and you should support local enforcement of the law because one day you may need help and the emergency service might not get through." Tony (Car Driver), Gravesend
Editorial Comment: And we thought nobody liked traffic wardens, except other traffic wardens! Unfortunately Tony has missed the point. We fully agree that the law should be enforced so long as the people who enforce it are not breaking the law themselves. If yellow lines do not adhere to the very stringent specifications laid down in the regulations they are illegal. And they have nothing to do with ambulances and fire engines in this case; they were supposedly laid down to stop commuters parking but are really nothing more than a fund raising scheme for the local authority and their contractor, VinciPark.
25 minutes later Tony lapsed into totally illiterate mode and sent us another comment about our article on illegal parking bay suspension. Again we have published it verbatim...
"what is the matter with you, you seem hell bent on blocking up owe roads just for your satisfaction if you park eligerly than you should be booked if you cant read a sigen than you should not be driving as you are a danger to othere road users and should not be driving you seam to whant it all your own way and not a thought to othere road users are you an old person with nothing else to do its a pittiy you cant put as much work in surporting owe roads to keep them clear to drive on as you do to rubbish the good work some people are doing you are what people call a monne old git but may be thats what you want people to think of you have some comman sens and try and help keep owe roads open for people to drive on safferly and not calles conjestrone im not a yougster but in my late fiftes and i can see you are a fall when it comes to using the roads if your coments mach your driving than may be you should give up driving for yours and owe safte befor you hert some one and you all so nead a lessone in car parking be cause you clearly dont have a clue as for me after 40 years of drving and not a ticket or a fine i fill you are in bad need of a retest"
Editorial Comment: Contrary to what Tony may think, I passed the Institute of Advance Motorists test in 1978 and also the League of Safe Drivers test. I was a member of the Association of Industrial Road Safety Officers for many years and organised many safe driving events for HGV drivers. I also mastered English at school.
So, Tony, I speak from a qualified position. But as you are so defensive about traffic wardens perhaps you are one yourself?
Great article and great web site. I find it all most informative. Thank you very much. HB, Sheffield
Editorial Comment: Thanks for balancing the vote, HB. I was beginning to worry that there were perhaps more visitors like Tony who actually like traffic wardens.
I am so pleased to see I am not alone in fighting for justice for the elderly or vulnerable who are already struggling on the brink of survival. The things they are having to go through are soul destroying when they see no fairness or justice from the very people who should be protecting them.
My Prime Minister either doesn't seem to know or care about millions of people being troubled by the wasted time and financial disasters they face from parking enforcement. At least 65% are illegally ticketed ... does this not prove that the councils are crooked in their practice? And letting them get away with this will deeply ingrains in our society that there is rot throughout the councils and the legal system.
By the way, I sit in as a public member on the back seats at the appeals and I think many more people should sit in to lend support. Many people thanked me afterward for my support and some said if I wasn't there they would not have had a fair hearing. In time, as they became aware of my presence, it was amazing how the adjudicators changed their persona. From being biased they started to do what they were supposed to do. It just goes to show that we, as the public, do need a body which will safeguard our interests.
Anyway, many thanks for your web site.
Irvin, London
My recent experience with Bexley Council's parking policy confirmed to me their uncaring and inflexible attitude to minor parking infringements.
I purchase a pay and display ticket to park in Nag's Head car park in Welling. After returning from shopping I was surprised to find a PCN on the windscreen but after investigation found that the ticket had turned over in the car, possibly due to a draught and the design of the ticket being unable to be stuck down.
I appreciate that the warden was obliged to issue the PCN under these circumstances but expected Bexley Council to cancel the fine after it was proven to them that a valid ticket was indeed purchased. Forget any compassion or common sense from Bexley Council. The appeal was rejected twice by their office and once by the parking appeals service. A valid ticket was purchased yet I was still fined. I don't accept how this can be right or fair.
This demonstrates the rigid attitude of Bexley Council and what those of us who drive frequently in the borough have to contend with.
Derek, Dartford
Editorial response: The name of the game where Bexley Council are concerned is money. And any scam to raise it will do, even when the council are operating an illegal controlled parking zone and are therefore committing fraud on a huge scale.
I stayed with my sister for Christmas. My car was parked on Lower Park Road, Belvedere for the entire Christmas period and was not parked on a yellow line. On New Year's Day I moved my car literally a few yards to opposite my sister's house, which has yellow line, to enable me to load my car up. It was parked there for all of 15 minutes. When I went back to my car I had a parking ticket. The yellow line has been there for a couple of years for two reasons: 1) to stop commuters for the railway station parking and 2) to enable binmen to access the flats opposite my sister's house.
The roads on New Year's Day are almost devoid of traffic and where I was parked would never cause a hazard to other road users at any time.
I appealed and, of course, it was rejected.
I actually didn't realise (just like a lot of other road users) that bank holidays are not unrestricted. Even so, the fact that a parking attendant was out issuing tickets on New Year's Day in a quiet residential area left me speechless.
Leslie O'Leary, Colliers Wood
Editorial response: Bexley Borough earned almost £4.5-million from parking revenue during 2007 and none of it was spent on maintaining the signage or the road markings. Even when the appeal for the lady in our lead story was won on the grounds that the CPZ was illegal due to having only one sign at the entrance to the zone, Bexley still had the gall to insist that they did nothing wrong! The fact is that they were committing a huge fraud by operating the CPZ but, as we all know, no-one in the public sector ever loses their jobs, even when they are criminals. As a result, the main culprits on the council remain employed.
But the battle is not over yet!
I managed to get a PCN written off using the 1688/1689 Bill of rights. The council in question was Islington.
How they have the audacity to call traffic wardens CIVIL ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS when they do not use the civil laws of this country to enforce a PCN. The traffic ACT 2004 needs the consent of the governed, as does any act.
Parliament push these acts through to collect fraudulent monies from the driving population then they frighten and intimidate people into paying. I have been threatened by Luton Council with the bailiffs if I don't pay up for a PCN by the 24th February 2009. And they doubled the fine.
I am still fighting the PCN as a matter of principal. My ticket was not displayed correctly (it was face down), I paid for my parking and will not pay a hefty penalty. They also told me they would take me court (more threats and bullying tactics).
Demanding money with menaces is a serious offence - something they need to be reminded of.
BJ, Borehamwood
I visited Bexleyheath on 16th January 2009. I received today a penalty charge notice stating I stopped in a restricted area outside a school where prohibited (camera enforcement). There were two accompanying photographs of my car time stamped 15:00:29 and 15:00:38 showing my car adjacent to the kerb, presumably outside St Catherine's school.
At the time I had just delivered my wife to visit a friend at an address towards the bottom of Watling Street hill and I then went back up the hill to go to Sainsbury's car park in the town centre. I had no reason to stop outside the school and have no recollection of doing so. It is possible that I had to stop briefly if there was stationary traffic in front of me or if there was a parked vehicle obstructing the road ahead. If so, I may have had to wait for the traffic to clear so I could move out to pass the vehicle. Obviously this is not something that I would specifically remember but I do know I did not park.
The report note refers to "By CEO: BL340". What is this? Is it a fixed camera or has a parking official taken photos of my car? If it is a recording would this be continuous so I could look at it and see how long I was there and what the position was regarding the traffic on the road in the vicinity? If it was by an official then as I must have been in the car surely it would have been appropriate to have come over to me and pointed out that there was a problem. This would of course assume that I was there long enough for this to be possible.
This is the first time I have been to Bexleyheath and I am most concerned that an unwitting law abiding 69 year old pensioner should have this
sprung upon him. I am at a loss to know what to do. It would seem you are guilty unless you can prove otherwise. I would appreciate some advice.
Niall McKernan, Canterbury
Editorial Response: The fist thing to do is to make an informal appeal on the grounds that the contravention did not occur. You will find the necessary instructions on http://www.bexley.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=992. If this is turned down, follow the procedures on the website and make a formal appeal.
Bexley, like many other boroughs, know parking revenue is easy money because most people will pay up even though they are convinced they did not park illegally. But if you fight them you have a good chance of winning if it goes to a tribunal providing you can prove you were wrongly ticketed. If you can afford £10 I also urge you to subscribe to the service offered by http://www.parkingappeals.co.uk. You will get lots of information that will help you to fight your case.
If the photographs were taken nine seconds apart, I suggest it is not compelling evidence that you were illegally parked. In other words, it proves nothing. But this is the disadvantage of introducing penalties based on the evidence of mobile cameras, especially when they are operated by the kind of idiots that VinciPark employ. There has been much evidence in the past that such evidence can be tampered with - see the story above about Jonathan Greatorex under "The BBC are on the Case" - and it is my belief that Bexley's parking management team have no qualms about tampering with evidence.
To answer your questions:
- CEO is the new name for traffic wardens - Civil Enforcement Officers. They're still the same morons that we had before but they now have a fancy title
- BL is the designation given to Bexley's wardens. We think it stands for "Bloody Liar"!
- It's difficult to know if this was a fixed or mobile camera without seeing the photographs. Bexley do have three mobile teams.
Editorial follow-up
I went out and photographed the place Mr McKernan stopped his car and discovered that
the "No stopping" sign was actually illegal as it contained the wording "During Term Time" (click picture on right). This is not allowed. Also,
the marking on the road had largely been obliterated by road repairs so the wording was incomplete and could not be read. Furthermore, the road
markings and the sign were on the opposite side of the road to the school. We're fairly sure this is not allowed in the regulations. I supplied my
photographs to Mr McKernan, together with a copy of the regulations, and his ticket was
cancelled on appeal.
This proves yet again that the wardens do not know the law regarding parking regulations and that Bexley's parking administration is willingly breaking the law. Several weeks after the ticket was rescinded, the sign had still not been replaced so presumably other motorists may also have been booked by some stupid CEO. But it all goes to show that if you are booked, you must check the regulations and fight your case if you find the authorities are infringing the regulations by not applying the correct signs or road markings. There is no tolerance on the legal standards so councils cannot argue that poor markings are OK.
Ed.
On 4th May 2009 (Bank holiday Monday) I parked in Blackfen Road to have a look at a car for sale. As it was a Bank Holiday I thought it would be ok to park on a single yellow line.
Within a very short time a traffic warden appears (mobile) and tickets my car. She already had the ticket printed out before she got out her van (which was parked halfway in a parking bay with the rear of the van in the middle off the road).
She was so fast that neither me or the car dealer saw her arrive and print the ticket and we were only 10ft away from the car. The dealer apologised and said that was how they worked in Bexley.
I explained to the warden that I thought it was Sunday parking as it was a Bank Holiday. She said in a 'I do not care' attitude, "No parking Mon - Sat." and I replied, "If I genuinely thought I could not park I would have displayed my Blue Badge" at which point she took a photo of my car window and told me to appeal it. Then she ran back to her van.
I got into my car and drove down the road to the next car dealer. I put my Blue Badge up this time and noticed she had stopped (on a yellow line again) and was waiting for another traffic warden who was booking another car on the other side of the road.
There were very few cars on the road so this ticket was about money. Nothing else!
David Orr, Abbey Wood
Editorial response
Unfortunately, bank holidays are not treated in the same way as Sundays because that would reduce the income from this 'nice little earner'.
However, you've hit the nail bang on the head with your last sentence, David. Traffic enforcement in Bexley is nothing more than a money-making scam enforced by a bunch of VinciPark cretins who don't even understand the parking regulations they supposedly enforce. And they are supervised by a team of Bexley staff who knowingly break the law and commit wholesale fraud into the bargain.
I have reported this in person to Councillor John Wilkinson (Brampton Ward) and have copied most of my accusatory correspondence to the deputy leader of the council, Councillor Simon Windle (Barnehurst Ward). Neither of these useless Tories appear to have done anything about this scandal thus proving my point that they are no better than their Labour predecessors. However, I am putting together a case for malfeasance in public office and I hope to see some heads roll as a result.
Ed.
I had the same problem with parking in Bexley.
I had to go to appeal to win my case - waste of time appealing to Bexley as they don't know the law on the parking regulations. Or perhaps it pays not to know.
JFR, London
It certainly must have paid handsomely in the past when so many people in this area were fraudulently victimised by Bexley and their useless contract wardens. But, suddenly, many of the yellow lines (which the council previously insisted were legal) have been repainted. No doubt the lines will be disturbed again in the near future because the road surfaces are a disgrace with potholes everywhere. Ed.
I have been ticketed today (22nd July 2009) in Islington. I parked my car in a controlled zone and saw the parking attendant. I explained to him that I was going to the shop, which was about 25 metres away to get some change and asked if it would be ok. He mumbled something at me, shrugged his shoulders and turned around as if to walk back up the street. 2 minutes later I get back to my car to find him just finishing off my ticket and placing it in his envelope and about to stick it onto my car. I asked what he was doing and said I had just spoken to him and he just said, "Appeal, appeal."
Beware of London Boroughs Camden and Islington.
Mark, London
I thoroughly agree that something should be done about the Highway Robbery perpetrated by these rogues, with full and final backing by the councils. It would appear that lying and falsifying evidence are not only condoned, but backed up by many of these councils. I am currently in dispute with Lambeth Council but feel like I am trying to push a piece of rope up a hill.
I am at the stage of appealing to the Parking and Traffic Appeals Service but I am constantly plagued by the "Just pay up and get it over with" thought. However I will not be called a liar by anyone, regardless of their ethnicity. So the fight goes on. Keep up the good work.
Regards, Chas H., Cheltenham
|
Please tell us about your experiences -
We value your feedback. If you want to publicise any unjust practises that have affected you,
please use our contact form. If you want to add comments about any of our published articles, use the form below the article. This also gives you the opportunity to cast your vote. |
"Many men stumble across the truth ... but most manage to pick themselves up and continue as if nothing had happened."
Winston S Churchill
[Home] ● [Top of page]
Bookmark this page in Internet Explorer or FireFox!