Force of Destiny


2000+ Free world Best Books


Logic Law

Bernini___THIS is a FREE site, and ALL such cases get posted with credit to their originators and helpers.___Bernini

THESE pages are by courtesy and permission of Barry Moss,

Campaigner for JUSTICE where has it gone in England? These are

Barry's pages..

And Restitution link for £2500 repaid council tickets, to Andrew, Here.

Plus Camden's latest, A BMW worth £20,000 CRUSHED, NOT SOLD, CCC-CRUSHED to get £120 of arrears while lady was looking after her sick father. ANY MORE SICKNESS around? Here.

Barry and others V Bolton Council, and Bolton's fightback with misrepresentations and extenuations that deny allegations WHILE SPENDING £90,000 on putting them right. Nice contrariety in terms?

EVERYTHING is FINE, carry on FINE-ing...... It's only one day's news, here today gone tomorrow.


PARKING bays in more than 1,000 streets will be reviewed by Bolton Council over the next six months.
But the council's executive committee has been told that the parking regime was not illegal.
A report to councillors yesterday conceded that most bay markings did not comply with the (LAW OOPS CHANGE THAT to) Traffic Sign Regulations from the Department for Transport, highlighting problems including the bay lengths and dimensions of white line markings.

[ SO WHY TALK ABOUT THE REGIME being legal, WHEN the BAYS are Illegal, two different subject topics? I know! Our councillor's home is legal, but the activities inside it, are accused of being illegal. BUT the executive committee has been told ONLY that the councillor has a legal home and more importantly a legal spin machine to spin the descriptions abut the illegal activities inside it. I see! Make it all sound-bite nice, continue the illegalities under a cloak of spin about sin that makes black look white, It's a new game sent from a top directive described as having probity, downwards.

Oh! Really! Nice one! Let's go and have a chat about it on next weeks holiday, oops sorry, next week's council meeting we must have in Hawaii to discuss Bolton's legal regime. Bob put that one down as a staff , no, a laugh meeting. Editorial comment.

(it was said by a reliable 'sauce'). ]

Click here for the (B)LINK. Be quick in case you miss the words on what's legal and misleading, in the example of spin.

£90k bill of parking bay row By Paul Keaveny

Comment | Read Comments (30)

A ROW over parking bays in Bolton has cost the council £90,000.

And the bulk of the cash has been spent since parking campaigner, Barry Moss, launched a one-man battle against "unlawful" road markings across the borough.

A full meeting of Bolton Council was told that officer time alone has cost £30,000, while £3,000 has been spent on legal advice.

Advertisement The council has also spent £37,000 removing lines found to be non-compliant with parking laws and repainting them.

Some of this work was in the pipeline before Mr Moss became involved, but was moved forward once discrepancies were highlighted.

Executive member for the environment, Cllr Nick Peel, said: "Some of these bays were for disabled drivers or for loading. Because the lines were non-compliant, anybody could have used to bays without redress, neglecting the needs of the people for whom they were designed, so we moved work forward.

"Dealing with the allegations of incorrect markings has not delayed the implementation of any capital projects, however the diversion of resources into dealing with the matter has led to delays in other areas such as the promotion of traffic orders.

"The diversion of staff from Highways and engineering and delivery services staff has resulted in a slight delay in the implementation of some street lighting works."

Mr Moss has lodged dozens of questions and queries under the Freedom of Information Act with the council, regarding parking bays and markings across the borough.He claims they are illegal, and do not comply with the regulations from the Department for Transport and were illegal. Most of Mr Moss' complaints refer to the dimensions of bays and the white lines which mark them out.

Speaking to fellow councillors at the meeting, Liberal Democrat councillor Roger Hayes said that Mr Moss had a right to make his point, but said the cost and the distraction of council officers could lead to other more important projects being delayed around the town.

"If I had been him I would have pursued it in a different way. It has taken up an awful lot of officer time and it will delay schemes, some of which may be in my ward."

Conservative councillor Colin Shaw said he did not believe the council had ever meant to deceive anyone, adding: "It's regrettable, but if things are wrong we have to put them right, it's as simple as that."

Mr Moss has pledged to continue his crusade saying: "It's money wasted because the lines are still wrong and they would still not stand up to scrutiny. It's not taxpayers money. Parking services cash is ring-fenced. Bolton Council has taken £6.5million off motorists and a large amount of that was unlawfully taken.

"I want justice for those people, and until it comes my campaign shall go on."

8:14am Saturday 15th December 2007

£90K BILL OF PARKING BAY ROW

Now then, If all the bays are legal, and the council execute-ive have been told so, while they are in their meeting, let's spend £90,000 to employ lawyers and correct the legal bays, oops sorry we meant the illegal bays, just a slip of the tongue.

Get the press in and tell them to print the bays are legal, before or after they have been corrected, that's the question?

By the way, call him a campaigner, and forget about the fact he is fighting for a just lawful society, we want just an awful society. (it was said by a reliable 'sauce').

Allegations about parking are incorrect.. ( So! Correct it now! allegations about Barking, are incorrect.” )

By Readers' Letter

I am writing in response to recent articles and letters that have appeared in the Bolton News with regards to Bolton Councils parking enforcement system, and allegations made by Mr Barry Moss.

Mr Moss has pursued a campaign against the Council over technicalities relating to signage and road markings. This is a part of a campaign that has targeted several local authorities around the country.

To date Mr Moss has sent in 85 e-mails, made 30 requests for information under the Freedom of Information Act, and made numerous telephone calls. This has consumed a significant amount of officer time, that could have been better spent on other priorities. All of Mr Moss's complaints have been responded to, however I believe that his campaign has been disproportionate to the minor nature of most of his complaints.

The majority of residents and visitors to Bolton are able to identify what a parking bay is, and are not misled in any way because it may be an inch too long or an inch too small. The Council has always acted in good faith and believe that most people understand road markings and work within the system.

When the Council first became aware that some of its "lining" did not correspond with existing traffic regulation orders, it immediately took legal advice. The legal advice received has stated that the majority of claims made by Mr Moss are incorrect. However, changes have been made to a small number of bays where the points raised were valid, such as those around the civic centre. In my view, there was no option, given the legal advice, but to correct the bays in the interim in order to ensure we now comply with the legal requirements. The alternative would have been to have no enforcement regime whatsoever, thus making loading bays and disabled bays available for general parking. The Council also dispute claims that the newly painted markings are not legal. The Department for Transport has confirmed that the markings are valid.

The legal advice has also stated that an inconsistency in the marking of a parking bay does not mean it is unenforceable in law. The purpose of a parking bay is to draw the public's attention to a parking restriction. It is therefore ridiculous for Mr Moss to claim that people have suffered some kind of injustice by paying to use a parking bay that may not have been marked correctly, but clearly is a parking bay. Therefore, despite the misleading story that appeared in The Bolton News on the 14th November, the issue of potential refunds relates only to two bays - one in Le Mans Crescent outside the Central Library and one on Victoria Square North. Under the provisions of the law each claim for refund of parking charges or penalties must be dealt with on a case by case basis, and the council will, of course, be happy to do this on behalf of any customers who feel they may be entitled to make a claim.

For the long term provision of parking in Bolton Town Centre, the Council has, for some time, been undertaking a phased review of parking bays. As part of this work the council has been working on a new traffic order for the Civic Centre which would result in ten extra parking bays, eight of which will be for disabled drivers To conclude, allegations that pay and display markings in the town centre are illegal, are incorrect and misleading. The Councils parking enforcement system is legal, but we have responded to Mr Moss and are in the process of correcting any inaccurate linage that could still exist.

Councillor Nick Peel, Executive Member for Environmental Services

10:40am Tuesday 4th December 2007

Meanwhile tell the public Barry has it WRONG...HERE.
We don't want them queuing for refunds do we? SHUSH!

He won, and Bolton Council parking bosses have promised to review the situation after Mr Williams urged them to move the machine away from the car park. (We always promise to review, doesn't mean we carry out the promise, or indeed when and if reviewed, do anything about it, It's a chance to have a meal at the local and have a meeting. It was said by a reliable sauce)

Mr Williams said: "The guy at the garage across the road came out and said at least four people a day were getting tickets for the same thing." ...........(please be quiet!)

A DRIVER who was given a parking fine after mistakenly using the wrong pay-and-display machine is calling for it to be moved. Bill Williams says the machine outside the town-centre car park at the junction of All Saints Street and Clarence Street could be misleading motorists. The machine isues tickets for parking in on-street spaces in Clarence Street. Mr Williams, aged 52, parked in the car park, but with the machine only yards from his space and separated from it by railings, he mistakenly used it to pay for his 60p ticket. He returned to his car to find a parking warden issuing a penalty notice.

"It's unbelievable," said Mr Williams, of New Heys Way, Bradshaw, who had parked while visiting a bank. "This is so misleading because the machine is at the entrance to the car park and not clearly signed. It should be moved.” "I asked the warden if there was a difference in the tickets and he said they were identical, so I said what are you doing?'" Have you been caught out in a similar way? Tell us in the comment section below Mr Williams appealed against his fine by letter, claiming he had not seen a separate machine on the other side of the car park. He won, and Bolton Council parking bosses have promised to review the situation after Mr Williams urged them to move the machine away from the car park. Mr Williams said: "The guy at the garage across the road came out and said at least four people a day were getting tickets for the same thing." A council spokesman said: "Although the parking attendant had acted correctly in this matter, we took a common-sense approach to Mr Williams' appeal. He was able to prove he had a valid pay-and-display ticket and had made an honest mistake." The spokesman said it was important drivers use the correct machines because the maximum parking periods can vary between car parks and on-street parking areas. "We appreciate Mr Williams alerting us to the potential confusion. We plan to review the situation and will take any appropriate action required," he added. 11:38am Wednesday 5th December 2007

RIGHT PARKING TICKET, WRONG PAY AND DISPLAY.

Well done chaps! Give some of them a HUGE pay rise.....

BOLTON'S two leading councillors are to receive huge pay rises, The Bolton News revealed today.

The council leader, Cliff Morris, is to get a £6,000 increase in his special responsibilities allowance - a rise of 28 per cent.

His deputy, Cllr Linda Thomas, is getting a £5,000 increase - up 40 per cent.

Along with Bolton's 58 other councillors, they will also get a seven per cent rise in their basic allowance from £8,779 to £9,400.

SIGNS and LINES are all ok? Tell the public! (we don't want a floodgate)

It's inaccurate and misleading. NPAS thinks other-WISE. Better not torun up at the hearing, it might be a leering or sneering.


NPAS RULING shows it is ALL just a fooling....


We’re indebted to Barry Moss 3:36pm Thursday 15th November 2007

I WAS surprised to read the letter from Terry White regarding the parking campaign by Barry Moss.

Want to park? Why not try a pothole 10:41am Tuesday 20th November 2007

I THINK I agree with Barry Moss, all the money taken off motorists who have parked in these illegal bays should be refunded by Bolton Council.

Parking stance may not be so easy to explain 10:22am Tuesday 6th November 2007

IN a few years' time, the conversation in the home of Barry Moss, parking campaigner, might run like this.

Focus attention on bad drivers 12:10pm Saturday 17th November 2007

FOR one man to successfully campaign against Bolton Council's misfeasance as did Barry Moss with regard to parking bays being illegal and which resulted in them being repainted correctly, is pretty remarkable.

Parking law is the same for everybody 2:51pm Monday 10th December 2007

I AM writing in response to Cllr Nick Peel's letter to The Bolton News (Tuesday, December 4), explaining Bolton Council's parking enforcement system, and also the allegations made by Mr Barry Moss.

Drivers must not pay these parking fines 9:55am Tuesday 30th October 2007

WITH reference to the front page article in Saturday's paper regarding Bolton Council's policy towards parking enforcement, at last someone like Barry Moss has had the time to properly prepare an official complaint about this policy.

Allegations about parking are incorrect 10:40am Tuesday 4th December 2007

I am writing in response to recent articles and letters that have appeared in the Bolton News with regards to Bolton Councils parking enforcement system, and allegations made by Mr Barry Moss.

BY THE WAY,

Comment from a re-lie-able source ALL councils in the UK are NOT the same.................

Yes I know that! They are far far worse, just better at hiding it and giving the public; who ELECT them, a hiding for doing so! What fun! Can you talk like that and get away with it,

We're supposed to be the only ones allowed to spin aloud.

BO05375E.pdf


Title:   Microsoft Word - msoFD2D0.doc

Author:   kakabadses

Contents:

Page No 1

Page No 2

Bookmarks

Page 1 of  2    

National Parking Adjudication Service  Case No:  BO 05375E     

Adjudicator’s Decision   

Mr Keivan Jalali-Bijari 

and  

Bolton Metropolitan Council   

Penalty Charge Notice BO61050311

Penalty Charge £60.00

Appeal allowed on the ground that the alleged parking contravention did not occur.

I direct the Council to cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and Notice to Owner.

Reasons

The PCN was issued on 02 September 2007 at 16:32 to vehicle MT51 KKV in Mawdsley Street

for being parked in a loading place during restricted hours without loading.

In a remarkable email from the Appellant to the Council dated 25/10/07, Mr Jalali-Bijari accepts

that he parked in a loading bay – albeit, he says, for only 10 minutes. Nevertheless, he resolved

to exercise his right to appeal and, when composing his email, indicated that he would reveal no more details of his grounds of appeal until the hearing. This strategy had, I was told, been successful for other motorists in Bolton. The Council sent a Notice of Rejection.

Mr Jalali-Bijari’s Notice of Appeal, however, raised an issue in advance of the hearing, albeit one which I find to be without merit. Mr Jalali-Bijari asserted that the PCN failed to comply with S66(3) of the Road Traffic Act 1991 because, he says, instructions for payment appeared on the tear-off slip. The papers contain a full copy of the PCN. The instructions for payment are, in fact, on the back of the PCN itself. At the hearing, the Appellant raised a new point. I considered whether to adjourn the case, but since Bolton Council had chosen not to attend, and since the point raised seemed to be unanswerable, I decided not to adjourn.

Top

Page 2 of  2    

Mr Jalali-Bijari demonstrated that the markings of the bay on 2/9/07 were inconsistent with the requirements of the Traffic Signs Regulations 2002. Recently, the bay has been re-painted correctly. I have photographs in the file of ‘before’ and after’. In my judgment, the potential for confusion is, in this case, miniscule. The bay is clearly a loading bay, and it is manifestly clear from Mr Jalali’s email that he knew it was a loading bay, and he was not confused at all by the signage.  However, save for de minimis variations, the design of signs, and marked-out bays on the road, must comply with the regulations. I therefore have to ask myself - is the double line at the end of this bay a de minimis variation? An email dated 5/10/07 from an official in the Dept for Transport to a Mr Moss (in relation to a different, but similar case) described an identical instance of incorrect marking, where the end of the bay is wrongly marked with a double white line instead of a single white line, as “an unlawful hybrid of 1028.4 and 1032 which does not conform to a single diagram in TSRDG 2002”. The official (john.munns@dft.gsi.gov.uk) will presumably have chosen his words with care, and be aware of the implications of such a rigid analysis, and the use of the word ‘unlawful’. If a bay design is ‘unlawful’, it is clearly unenforceable and, consequently, anyone can park there (without doing any loading or unloading) for as long as they like – which is clearly a recipe for chaos, and to the great detriment of the people and businesses in the area who need ready access to a loading bay unencumbered by selfish motorists who park there with no intention of loading or unloading. I was shown what appears to be evidence that, in May 07, Mawdsley St was on a list of highways requiring attention due to lines having sustained “wear + tear”. It has now been re-painted correctly. I have also considered the wording of the PCN, the Notice to Owner and the Notice of Rejection, and have found the wording of all these documents to be unobjectionable. I therefore find the various additional points raised at the hearing in relation to these matters to be entirely without merit.

Solely because, at the time the PCN was issued, the Loading Bay marking did not strictly comply with regulations, I have decided to allow the appeal.

Mark Hinchliffe

Parking Adjudicator appointed under Section 73 of the Road Traffic Act 1991

Date: 16 December 2007

No bookmarks found.

ORIGINAL PDF FILE IS HERE....


Please re visit these pages over the next few weeks and see how Andrew assembled his case.


Have a look at, Andrew V Bexley Council victory.

Restitution. PCNs County Court orders restitution of £2500 against Bexley County Council.

Here is the very professionally presented case by Andrew. Case material is HERE.....

The schema is here now, and the case material and arguments will follow shortly.

Click picture to enlarge, wait a few seconds, then click on lower right box to enlarge further.



20 parking tickets repaid in 14 days.
A little encouragement, have a look at this one.

Just got back from Dartford County Court on a 2 dates issue against London Borough of Bexley:
Anyway the long and the short of it is I won
Restitution for 28 already paid tickets, total amount inc. costs = 2500 with 14 days to pay!
I need to get my head around things and I have a few other things to do so I will go into detail later.
Main things were JR/Barnet and Winder vs Wandsworth.

Many thanks to Wayne P, Tony W, Teufel, DW190, Legaladviser and others.

Now for a cup of tea!



Top.