APPENDIX 4
Memorandum submitted by AppealNow.com
It must be recognised that the decriminalised
parking ticket system is heavily weighted against the motorist.
Just one example should suffice.
When a parking ticket is issued, a motorist
who believes the ticket was issued incorrectly appeals to the
very local authority which issued the parking ticket. Moreover,
the local authority and the contractor to whom the authority sub-contracted
the enforcement both have financial interests in the outcome of
the appeal. Experience is showing that many councils are not dealing
with appeals properly. This is evidenced by the fact that there
is, according to the latest figures, an almost 25% increase in
the number of parking ticket appeals to the London adjudicator.
I understand that a similar increase is prevalent outside London.
In any fair legal system, the onus of proving
a case rests with the prosecution. In the case of decriminalised
parking tickets, this has been shifted onto the shoulders of the
motorists. For example, when a motorist appeals against a parking
ticket, if the local authority mislays or misfiles the appeal,
the local authority will then often issue a Notice to Owner saying
a parking ticket has been issued and no appeal has been received.
An even worse case is when an appeal is being lodged against a
Notice to Owner and that appeal has been mislaid or ignored by
the council. The council will then issue a Charge Certificate,
increasing the total penalty charge by 50% with the threat of
court action. To counter this the motorist will often have to
swear a statutory declaration that an appeal was lodged. I have
evidence of many cases where appeals have been received by councils
and have just been ignored. I have even had cases where bailiffs
have removed vehicles or the motorist is threatened with the arrival
of bailiffs.
1. APPEALS BEFORE
THE ADJUDICATOR
Although I believe that in the main most appeals
before the adjudicator are fairly treated, nevertheless there
are some reservations that I have as follows.
1.1 When a motorist appeals to the adjudicator,
he or she will often attend in person but very rarely does the
parking attendant who issued the ticket attend to give evidence
on behalf of the local authority. This puts the motorist at a
tremendous disadvantage. Firstly, the adjudicator can ask the
motorist any question that the adjudicator wishes and the motorist
is obliged to answer, yet the motorist does not have the right
to ask questions of the parking attendant. In 99.9% of cases,
it is the "evidence" of the parking attendant's notebook
which is used in the case. I have cases where these notebooks
have been fraudulently written up and in fact there are two cases,
Fernandes v Watford Borough Council and Ali v London
Borough of Newham where in the first the parking adjudicator
found that the notebook had been wriiten up after the events and
the motorist called in the police to investigate and in the second
there was apparently an internal investigation undertaken by the
London Borough of Newham.
1.2 Another unfairness is that with the
tremendous resources of the local authority, they only have to
supply the appellant with documentation three working days before
the appeal hearing. Often this documentation is voluminous and,
to the layman, very difficult to understand. Once again it puts
the motorist at a great disadvantage.
1.3 One of the main issues of unfairness
is the fact that parking attendants are only ever identified by
their badge number, never by name, so that the appellant never
knows who their accuser is. The suggestion is that if the parking
attendant's name were made available, they would be put in danger.
This is absolute rubbish. Time and time again you see policemen,
who have come up against the most vicious and deadly criminals,
being asked to give evidence in full public view with their names
disclosed. It is hardly likely that a 60 year old lady will go
to the great lengths of finding out the address of the parking
attendant and smacking them over the head with an umbrella.
1.4 The inherent unfairness of the system
is also illustrated by situations where parking attendants claim
that either resident permits or disabled permits are not properly
displayed. This is often a question of fact and the motorist is
put at a complete disadvantage. It is my experience that parking
attendants routinely claim that disabled permits are not properly
displayed and give parking tickets to disabled motorists on the
basis that they will find it more difficult to appeal.
1.5 One of the most pernicious activities
of local authorities is to turn down an appeal and require the
motorist to appeal to the parking adjudicator and at the last
minute actually withdraw their opposition to the appeal (either
change to withdraw the penalty—or—allow the appeal).
This is completely unfair as the motorist, who is after all a
layman, often has to go to great lengths to obtain information
and evidence. It seems to me quite unacceptable and immoral for
local authorities to drop out at the last minute and accept the
appeal. Moreover, it seems to me that if this is the case and
that the appeal had merit before the referral to the parking adjudicator,
then it must have had merit when it was first considered by the
local authority. This begs the question why the local authority
did not cancel the parking ticket in the first place.
1.6 Another important issue is that often
local authorities will not supply evidence to motorists when they
request it. There was even one case where the local authority
said they would only supply information if the motorist took the
case to the parking adjudicator. This is a complete abuse of the
process. I have also had a case where the appeal form for the
parking adjudicator, which is supposed to be included with a Notice
of Rejection, was not included by one local authority and the
motorist was told that if they wanted to appeal they had to telephone
and get the appeal form. All this reduced the time limit for the
appeal to be lodged with the adjudicator and was grossly unfair.
1.7 Moreover, I have uncovered in excess
of 40 parking scams which are perpetrated on the motoring public
and I have indicated these on my website. For convenience, I have
shown these as Annex 1.
2. PUBLIC CONFIDENCE
Although the Road Traffic Act 1991, which authorises
and allows the decriminalisation of parking tickets, is not supposed
to allow local authorities to use the system to raise revenue,
nevertheless the actions of local authorities have been such that
in the minds of motorists the sole purpose of issuing parking
tickets is to raise revenue and not to ensure the smooth running
of traffic. Examples of parking attendants fraudulently issuing
tickets abound. Furthermore the fact that local authorities in
conjunction with their contractors often have issued targets for
tickets to be issued or cars to be clamped or towed away which,
if the contractor does not reach, imposes a financial penalty
on the contractor. Similarly, prizes have been offered to parking
attendants for the number of tickets they issue including, in
one notorious case, the award of a Vauxhall car as first prize,
a two week holiday for two as the second prize and a wide screen
television as third prize.
In addition television documentaries have highlighted
the gross abuse of the parking ticket system by parking attendants
and their managers. I refer the committee to the recent BBC "Whistleblowers"
documentary on parking enforcement and Channel Four's Dispatches
documentary "Confessions of a Parking Attendant". Both
these documentaries highlighted gross irregularities and fraud.
It is therefore hardly surprising that the motorist
has very great doubts as to the proper intentions of local authorities.
Moreover, there is an element of secrecy which
pervades the whole system. Each local authority has internal rules
called "parking protocols" which apply to their parking
attendants. In the past, local authorities have steadfastly refused
to publish these protocols. The only council so far to do so,
albeit reluctantly, is Westminster, but even then part of the
protocols were been disclosed. It does seem unjust that a person
can get a parking ticket without even knowing the basis on which
the parking ticket is issued and the rules under which the parking
attendants operate.
The Chief Parking Adjudicator has been highly
critical of many local authorities, and the Chief Parking Adjudicator's
annual reports should be required reading for every member of
the committee.
I believe there are solutions which can be simply
and easily implemented which would avoid all of the problems and
I set these out below. Moreover I would be happy to give evidence
to the committee,
PARKING POLICY IN THE UK—A SOLUTION
The average motorist believes, with considerable
justification, that open war has been declared on motorists by
councils, contractors and parking attendants.
I believe that in some local authorities the
parking ticket system is totally out of control and that there
needs to be a complete overhaul of the system which is unfairly
weighted against the honest motorist.
I believe that the whole parking system can
and should be re-organised to work fairly and transparently.
There should in any case be a public enquiry
as soon as possible to show that government takes this matter
seriously. Experts with real knowledge of the problems should
be consulted as part of this process.
Here is my 10-point plan to achieve this.
1. Each council must compensate each motorist
who receives an incorrect parking ticket.
1. The compensation should be equal
to the full amount of the parking ticket.
2. If the motorist has to go to the
parking adjudicator the motorist should receive an additional
50% of the maximum parking fine in compensation if he or she wins.
This cost should be borne equally by the Council and the Contractor.
2. At the moment all local authorities have
their own local parking bye-laws (referred to as Traffic Management
Orders in London and Traffic Regulation Orders outside London).
These laws should be standardised throughout the country.
3. Councils must demonstrate in an open
and fair way that they are not using parking enforcement as a
means of raising revenue but instead using it to manage traffic
as required by the Road traffic Act 1991.
4. Councils must ensure that they are exercising
proper control over the actions of their parking contractors and
parking attendants so that no parking tickets are issued illegally.
They must do this by undertaking spot checks and instituting quality
control procedures—both of which are basic business procedures.
5. Councils must ensure that the public
is made aware of the financial incentives given to parking attendants,
so that the public know whether there might be some ulterior motive
on the part of the parking attendant when a parking ticket is
issued.
6. Complaints against parking attendants.
1. Councils must deal immediately with
all complaints against parking attendants.
2. Councils must deal with the complaints
themselves and not, as is somtimes the case, get the parking contractor
who has a vested interest in the outcome of the complaint failing,
to deal with them.
7. It should be illegal for contracts with
contractors to guarantee a fixed amount of revenue to a council.
It is an incentive for dishonesty.
8. All appeals must be considered by local
authority staff and not the parking contractor.
9. During the appeal process and at adjudication
hearings the name of the parking attendant or attendants providing
evidence is not disclosed—only their badge number is made
available. This is totally unacceptable in a democracy. If the
police did this there would be a public outcry.
1. Parking attendants should wear name
tags; and
2. Their identities should be disclosed
at the beginning of the appeal process and at all hearings.
10. Decriminalisation of parking should
take place as soon as possible outside London in an organised
and controlled fashion. This will release police resources. This
is a complex issue but must be addressed soon—it is crazy
that in some place outside London you get a fixed penalty notice
for parking on a double yellow line and have to go to court.
| 
