News
March 2010
Westminster council in London has just switched its network of over 100 parking cameras cameras back on.
They have been off for a year as they didn't meet the department of transports quality standards.
We ask ourselves why have these cameras been upgraded and switched on. Has congestion got worse in the last 12 months - NO. The government have told councils that they should not really be using CCTV unless it is impractical to use traffic wardens.
Read more... View the story and video on the BBC.co.uk
Feburary 2010
Enforcement of Diplomatic bays could have been illegal
There are 344 Diplomatic bays in London of which 198 are in Westminster and 134 in Kensington and Chelsea. Because Diplomatic bays are not "standard bays" special permission is required from the department of transport.
January 2010
Westminster council have in principle decided to introduce parking charges until midnight in the central area and to stop parking on single yellow lines until midnight. they will also be increasing parking charges to up to £5 ph.
At a cabinet meeting at Westminster held on the 18th Jan they decided, in principle, to extend the charging and enforcement hours of the central controlled zones to Midnight Mon - Sat. They also decided to increase parking charges in most areas including a 100% increase in St Johns Wood and up to £5 ph in central London. This means that in central London which could include the F zone south of Marylebone Road as well as all other zones except B and C (which are north of Marylebone Road) motorists will have to pay up to £5 ph until midnight and will no longer be able to park on single yellow lines after 6.30pm as they to will operate until midnight. What does this mean. (except a massive increase in revenue for Westminster.
Many people will no longer visit shops, restaurants theatres, cinemas etc in the evening so many of these may well close.
December 2009 (updated 23 December 2009)
Warning - Boxing Day parking controls
Some councils such as Westminster Council and Kensington and Chelsea Council in London are charging for parking on Boxing day even though their signs say no charge on public holidays. We assume that they don't regard boxing day as a public holiday this year because it falls on a Saturday. Funny that because their libraries and Leisure centres are closed on Boxing day as "it is a Public Holiday".
All that is going to happen is that thousands of motorists are going to have their Christmas's tarnished by a £120 ticket.
Is your local council charging for on-street parking and imposing fines on Boxing Day?
November 2009
Westminster council internal report refers to ticket targets of 736,000 this year, loss of revenue, £11.4m surplus for the year,productivity levels and business plans!
The report sought permission to spend around £800,000 upgrading their CCTV enforcement network which didn't meet government quality standards. The report said that without the upgrade Westminster will loose £1.9m in income.
The law is clear in that parking enforcement is not to be used for revenue raising. It is for traffic management purposes and yet these words can be found no where in the report.
What a country we live in.
September 2009 (updated articles):
Westminster council pilots new scheme to allow anyone to park in residents bays. More...
The M11 speed camera that has resulted in a near doubling of accidents. More...
Camden's Tickets ruled invalid. More...
August 2009
CCTV issued parking fines cancelled as council did not place sufficient warning signs telling motorists that CCTV enforcement was in operation. The traffic appeals service also said that CCTV use should be used sparingly as stated in the government guidance issued in March 2008.
We think that this case in Wirral has implications for councils such as Westminster and Camden in London who issue hundreds of thousands of parking tickets each year from an army of CCTV cameras.
For details of the article featured in the sun click here
June 2009 (Updated September 2009)
Westminster council pilots new scheme to allow anyone to park in residents bays.
They say it is a residents visitor scheme but the smallprint discloses that anyone can pay and park in the new shared use bays.We say they are taking valuable space away from residents so they can earn more money from residents bays. We were interviewed on BBC London news today 23rd June 09.
Also the signs are positively misleading for motorists and we have brought this to the attention of the council and the department of transport. Pay by phone customers can only pay to park from 10am - 4 pm . They can't park between 8.30 am - 10.00am and 4pm - 6.30 pm. But the street signs simply say chargeable hours 10am - 4 pm. See picture below.
Westminster tried something similar many years ago but stopped because "it was confusing to motorists"!
September 2009 UPDATE:
Westminster has removed some of the roads from the scheme due to pressure from residents.
If you are a Westminster resident who has paid in good faith for a parking permit then you may want to write to Westminster to ask tem to stop renting out your spaces. You may also want to ensure that whenever possible you park in these new shared use bays to stop other motorists without permits taking them."
Greedy Camden council's tickets from the beginning of this year included a surcharge when making payment by credit card.
One of the statutory grounds for appeal is that the penalty charge exceeded the amount applicable in the circumstances.
An adjudicator has decided that "the local authority are neither entitled nor empowered to impose any sum, whether for the method of payment or anything else, in addition to the statutory penalty charge imposed" he goes on to say:
"although I do not need to determine the issue it must follow that this is the same for any penalty charge notice or, where relevant, on any notice to owner or enforcement notice issued under the road traffic act 1991, other of the London Local authorities acts 1990 to 2003 or the traffic management act 2004."
Camden are not the only local authority to try and impose an illegal surcharge. It doesn't matter whether you actually paid by credit card or not.
September 2009 update:
Merton councill also impose a surcharge and one of their bus lane tickets was cancelled as a result recently.
August 2009
When everyone is feeling the pinch in the worst recession for generations and the government is trying to help, Westminster Council has increased parking charges in some areas by between 10% and 33%.
They are already making millions more from the introduction of pay by phone parking and obviously have no regard for anyone except their coffers. And the Conservatives say they will give more power to local government. We say they are greedy and should be renamed WESTMONSTER Council instead.
May 2009
Diabolical enforcement of moving traffic contraventions by Islington Council.
Above: It is frankly unbelievable that they would even consider enforcing this restriction. Firstly the cycle symbols on the road indicate that the narrow sections are for bicycles only. Secondly there are no white arrows on the road surface to indicate that traffic should move to the left. Thirdly the road markings on the large middle section are incorrect or confusing. Fourthly if Islington really wanted to ensure that only vehicles of a certain width entered the road they should have erected width restriction signs on either side of the narrow sections to make it clear. And why not put a fire gate in the middle section to ensure compliance rather than purposely making it easy for vehicles to use the middle section (and receive a £120 fine) Of course this is nothing to do with revenue raising is it!
Above: So you are driving along a road and suddenly there are 2 one way signs facing you.The road markings indicate that the road is 2 way, and there are no road markings informing drivers that they must turn right into the side road or do a U turn. In our opinion this is entrapment in the name of revenue raising.
January 2009 (Updated November 2009)
The M11 speed camera that has resulted in a near doubling of accidents.
What may well be one of the most profitable speed cameras in the country is actually causing accidents and injuries and yet Essex Police are refusing to remove it.
The Camera was installed in May 2001 on a busy stretch of the M11 between junctions 4 and 5 of the southbound carriageway. The speed limit reduces from 70mph to 50mph without prior warning, the carriageway narrows from 3 to 2 lanes and just beyond is a speed camera. In February 2008 we witnessed the aftermath of a 3 car pile up immediately in front of the camera. It was obvious that it was the camera that caused the accident because cars were having to reduce speed and merge and then of course some motorists slamm on their brakes when they pass the camera. So we asked the department of transport for the accident and casualty statistics. The camera was installed in May 2001. In the first 5 months of 2001 (pre speed camera) there was one slight accident with 1 slight casualty.
In the second half of 2001 (post camera installation) there was one serious accident, 4 slight accidents, 1 serious casualty and 10 slight casualties. Now you don't need a degree in traffic management to see that the camera should have been removed immediately.
In the 5½ years prior to its installation there were a total of 13 accidents and 14 casualties.
In the 5½ years post installation there were 18 accidents and 26 casualties!
At the same time we suspect millions of pounds has been made. How much we don't know because after 3 requests to Essex police and a complaint to the Information Commissioner’s Office, they are refusing to disclose the number of fixed penalty notices issued due to "operational reasons".
So, recently we wrote to Essex police and our local MP. We pointed out that this camera is causing accidents and injuries and provided them with the statistics which we obtained from the Department of Transport. We have now received back replies to our letters.
Essex police say "On the question of the statistics provided to you by the HA, on their own they are of little use, you may recall I mentioned in my previous letter it is also important to understand other factors around any information, for example the causation factors associated with any incidents that has not been shown, so it is difficult to fully analyse the information and make any firm conclusions"
It would seem that the police can't see that the causation factor is actually the camera! They go on to say that "finally I would add that the partnership reviews all its enforced sites annually and is satisfied that this and other sites should remain". We have asked for a copy of the review but won't hold our breath.
Jim Fitzpatrick from the Department for transport says "In the case of the M11, the casualty data does not show a pattern of incidents which would be consistent with the camera itself being a factor".
We think It is worrying how someone like this can get to such a high position in our government.
The undisputed fact is that no lives have been saved by this camera and many more accidents have occurred and people been injured as a result of it. The partnership that runs the camera is ironically called "The Essex casualty reduction partnership!!!"
How do they all get away with it?
Luckilly the Sun have exposed what is going on. http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article2093917.ece
September 2009 UPDATE:
Although we were able to highlight and publicise the number of accidents after a freedom of information act request Essex Police would not tell us how much they were making from this speed camera which we have proved is causing accidents.
The cited operational and health and safety reasons for not telling us. We think they just don't want the public to know how much they are making. So we appealed to the information commissioners office and after many months he has lambasted Essex police for the way they handled our request and given them 45 days to supply the information to us. If they don't they could be found in contempt of court!. Watch this space!"
November 2009 UPDATE:
We have now received information on the number of penalty charge notices issued.
The camera was installed in may 01 but the police don't have any information on the number of tickets issued until oct 02.
The number of tickets issued was as follows
8 Oct 02-31 dec 02 3007 (could equate to over 12,000 in the year)!
2003 9639
2004 8451
2005 9047
2006 7801
2007 3305
1/1/08 - 1/5/08 562
May 08 - May 09 6445
In the first half of 2001 before the camera was installed there was one accident and one casualty at the site.
In the second half (from May) 2001 after the camera was installed there were 5 accidents and 11 casualties one of which was serious.
We say why wasn't the camera removed at that time. We are not against the idea of speed cameras at certain locations but where they have been proved to be causing accidents or not reducing accidents they should surely be removed. Otherwise the public may well think that they are there to make money. But Essex police say they will not remove the camera and the government seems unwilling to get involved.
A retired chartered engineer, with a PhD in engineering has researched mobile speed cameras. His report is most interesting and can be viewed by clicking here.
In order to continue to fund our work and websites we need your donations. If you find information on our website that assists you in having a penalty charge notice (parking ticket) cancelled or simply don’t agree with what is happening and want to support us we would appreciate a smalldonation (via out PayPay donations page).
Thank you for your support!
November 2008
Appeal against Westminster Council’s use of CCTV for enforcement of parking/waiting restrictions upheld as Westminster council did not even contest it. Read more
Harrow cancels penalty charge notices as they are ruled unenforcable by an adjudicator. Read more
Westminster Council’s parking tickets on single yellow lines are unenforceable?! Read more
