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
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.
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
tell the public Barry has it WRONG...HERE.
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)
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....
indebted to Barry Moss 3:36pm Thursday 15th November 2007
Title: Microsoft Word - msoFD2D0.doc
Page No 1
Page No 2
Page 1 of 2
National Parking Adjudication Service Case No: BO 05375E
Mr Keivan Jalali-Bijari
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.
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.
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 (firstname.lastname@example.org) 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.
Parking Adjudicator appointed under Section 73 of the Road Traffic Act 1991
Date: 16 December 2007
No bookmarks found.
Please re visit these pages over the next few weeks and see how Andrew assembled his case.
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.
Just got back from Dartford
County Court on a 2 dates issue against London Borough of
Many thanks to Wayne P, Tony W, Teufel, DW190, Legaladviser and others.
Now for a cup of tea!