APPENDIX 20
Memorandum submitted by K J Bower
I strongly believe that both the enforcement
of parking regulations and the receipt of fines for parking regulation
infringements should not be in the hands of Local Authorities.
I hold this view because the present policy leads to a clear conflict
of interest within the Local Authority. I formed this view form
the experience of an on-going dispute with Newham Local Authority
in which my company has already won one Court Case. Currently
the Local Authority Ombudsman is looking into possible maladministration
by Newham Parking Department.
The conflict of interest arises because it is
to be expected that a significant number of Parking Attendants
will place Parking Notices on vehicles they know to be legally
parked. The incentive for them to do so may be financial reward
for exceeding booking targets or simply that they must fulfil
a quota of bookings to keep their jobs. It is in the interest
of good government that the Local Authority ensures that its Parking
Attendants, whether employed directly or through a contractor
should behave honestly. But it is in the Local Authority's financial
interest that they should behave dishonestly. For reasons set
out later a large proportion of fines charged to legally parked
vehicles will be paid. There is evidence that far from requiring
honesty from their Parking Attendants some Local Authorities encourage
dishonesty.
I can illustrate this by reference to Newham's
policy in Green Street, Newham.
1. Green Street is an exceedingly busy street
containing West Ham Football Club, a major Asian shopping area
and Queens Market. It is therefore not unreasonable for Newham
to ban all parking in sections of Green Street, even for purposes
of loading and unloading.
2. Parking provision is provided in the
adjoining Rochester Avenue but for the most part only for a maximum
of 20 minutes. Rochester Avenue contains the rear entrances and
loading bays of premises in Queen's Market and is the designated
parking area.
3. Newham parking regulations allow Parking
Attendants to place Parking Notices on parked vehicles which are
unattended for two minutes. To make a delivery to premises in
Queen's Market means a driver will be out of sight of his van
parked in Rochester Avenue for at least six to eight minutes.
Newham Council have therefore in effect given their Parking Attendants
permission to put Parking Notices on legally parked vans.
4. Parking Attendants exploit this permission
by sitting in parked vehicles either their own private cars or
Newham Parking Department vehicles and wait for delivery vans
to arrive. When the driver leaves the van to make a delivery they
wait two or more minutes and then place a Parking Notice on the
van.
5. Many companies will pay the £40
fine rather than bother with an appeal. If they do appeal then
the chances are the appeal will be turned down, often on the most
frivolous of grounds. We have had an appeal rejected on the basis
that we were parked in Rochester Avenue but claimed to deliver
to Green Street. This was an "anomaly" and so the appeal
was rejected.
6. The driver can then appeal to the Environment
and Transport Committee of the Association of London Government.
But it will take a day of the driver's and his manager's time
and even if the company wins the appeal, they will not receive
costs. Therefore most companies take the cost effective route
and pay the fine, although no offence has been committed.
CASE HISTORY:
MARCH 2004 TO
DATE
My company, Industrial Hygiene Services, makes
regular deliveries to customers in Queen's Market and Green Street
on a roughly monthly basis and has done so for the last four years.
On 17 March 2004, when making a delivery, a
Parking Notice was placed on our van in Rochester Avenue after
it had been left unattended for two minutes. I was the driver.
I assumed that new parking restrictions must have been introduced
for Rochester Avenue and the fine was paid promptly. When we discovered
later that there had been no change in parking regulations and
we had been parked legally, we wrote to Newham Council, enclosed
copies of the delivery notes and requested the fine be returned
as it had been paid in error. For six months Newham Council ignored
us. Despite follow up letters, including one to the Council Leader,
Sir Robin Wales, they did not acknowledge reciept of our letters,
reply to our letters or return our fine. They then wrote to say
they would not return the fine and "the matter was closed".
On 26 October 2004 we therefore issued a writ
in the Small Claims Court. The Council's response was a four-month
programme of harassment against us, in an attempt to get us to
drop the case. Two more parking tickets were placed on our van
when it was legally parked. I was telephoned at my home by Newham's
solicitor and threatened with a large claim for costs if we continued
the case.
This pressure continued right into the antechamber
of the Court where, 10 minutes before the Hearing, Newham's solicitor
approached me and gave me a written claim for £600+ costs.
She tried to get me to agree to pay part of it and to drop the
case.
At the Hearing however she told the judge that
Newham had re-appraised the case and had decided to offer no defence.
Not surprisingly she did not ask the judge for costs.
I concluded from this quite surprising behaviour
that Newham Council were very anxious that I should drop the case.
The sums of money were small; £40 returned fine; £20
expenses; £50 Court fees. So the probable reason was that
they feared if they lost the case, they would have had to change
the way they enforced their parking regulations. And they did
not want to do that because putting parking notices on legally
parked vehicles is a profitable practice.
What particularly concerns me is the organised,
almost institutionalised, nature of the dishonesty.
1. At the level of the Parking Attendant
Newham are no longer prepared to defend the
parking attendants who put Parking Notices on our legally parked
van and have tacitly admitted that the parking Attendants written
"diary" notes associated with their actions are not
reliable.
2. At the level of Newham Parking Department
It could be argued that as far as Newham Parking
Department is concerned a series of unrelated actions combined
to produce an unfavourable result. For example, banning parking
in Green Street is quite reasonable; restricting parking in Rochester
Avenue to 20 minutes is not necessary but acceptable; allowing
Parking Attendants to put Parking Notices on vehicles unattended
for two minutes was an error but it was designed for patrolling
Parking Attendants and it was a further oversight that it was
allowed to be used by Parking Attendants sitting in parked vehicles
watching unloading taking place; not replying to our letters for
six months, despite our writing to the Council Leader was human
error; as was rejecting appeals on frivolous grounds etc, etc.
Even if all this were likely, it is Newham's
actions after they received our writ which is significant. A writ
has to be dealt with by a responsible individual. If an honestly
run organisation makes a genuine error in good faith, it will
acknowledge, investigate, explain and respond. The dishonest organisation
will bluff, bully and prevaricate. I believe Newham Parking Department's
behaviour fits the second description.
3. At the level of Newham Council executive
Newham Council, on the instructions of the Court
repaid our fine, expenses and costs. So Newham Parking Department
could not contain the affair within their department. So I think
an honest Council would take a very hard look at the behaviour
of its Parking Department. I have no evidence they have done this.
Parking Attendants can still be seen in Rochester Avenue sitting
in private cars in the loading bays, waiting for delivery vans
to arrive.
When I enquired I discovered the Parking Attendants
who knowingly placed Parking Notices on or vehicle when legally
parked, are still employed by Newham's Parking Contractor. Replies
I have received to questions put under the Freedom of Information
legislation have not been answered honestly by Newham. We are
no longer being harassed. That stopped immediately we won our
Court Case. But this is the only visible change.
We have documentary evidence covering all the
statements in this submission. They were of course given to the
Court and also to the Local Authority Ombudsman.
Although Newham's Parking Department's behaviour
may seem incompetent as well as dishonest, it should be noted
that they would not have expected our delivery van to have been
driven by the owner of the company. They would expect the usual
driver or his company to give up after a few threats because it
makes good business sense to do so. They were unlucky to meet
someone who thinks honest Local Government more important than
profit.
I have taken the trouble to make this submission
because I feel the Committee should know what is happening now
as a direct result of Local Authorities being allowed to frame
parking regulations; control enforcement; and collect fines. The
temptation to abuse these powers is too strong for some Local
Authorities to resist.
19 August 2005
| 
