Code: ctzreate swarb.co.uk Law discussion forum (UK)    FAQ   Search   Memberlist   Usergroups   Register   Profile   Log in to check your private messages   Log in  News item on Dick Turpin clampers, and even more dampers          swarb.co.uk Forum Index -> Road Traffic Law         View previous topic :: View next topic   Author Message Tony Joined: 02 Jul 2006 Posts: 102 Posted: Thu Aug 16, 2007 10:06 am    Post subject: News item on Dick Turpin clampers, and even more dampers This continues promises made before. Several news items are on this thread, to provide background context on the true nature of the parking scam schemes. Other threads show the undelying themes that take the average motorist through a firewall of establishement supported procedures at PATAS, NPAS, TEC, the County Court, all revealing the nature of UNaccounable judicial bodies in place to support the sham. Unambiguous proof is coming amounting to over 1000 pages of exchanges monitored with some councils that will all be made public under the national codes of conduct that overrides each council's duty to treat its electorate in accordance with a code of conduct that is honoured far too frequently in the breach, placing revenue ahead of duty of care, making hte entire scheme flawed designed for fraud, with the fraud act toothless at present. -- Of course! 1 - Clamping, 2 - Ticketting pregnant mothers and re-labelling targets as 'baseline performence indicators, just like renaming councils as local authorites setting examples as to fraudulent behaviour. 3 - Wardens confessions, corroborating what we already KNOW. This is in the Ham & High, you will not find similar articles in the Camden New Journal, who I have tested for complicity in support to the Camden Parking Solutions, (Nice phrase that! Should be more like Camden Barking Pollutions or retributions) and so far they failed the test of being a FREE press. The air is promise crammed, you can't feed capons so. What we want is a procedure that taxes driving and persuades people to park MORE, that helps the CO2 argumnts that are totally fallacious, and only brought in to reduce unemployment as a politcal sound bite. Just a comment added by a minority view, sorry 'minority report'. 1 - Clamping, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6948886.stm Councils urged to stop clamping A 15-minute grace period is being suggested for illegally parked cars Councils in England will be banned from using wheel-clamping to raise funds, under new proposals. A Department for Transport consultation says councils should "not seek to make a surplus" from clamping parked cars. The proposed guidance, which is part of a parking regulations shake-up, puts a priority on winning public support. It says the enforcement should be "proportional" to the contravention's seriousness. Wheel-clampers are being urged to target persistent offenders. The guidance is issued to councils outside London, based on experience in the capital. It also recommends a 15-minute "period of grace" for cars parked after a meter has run out. The proposals only to clampers working on behalf of councils and not those operating on private land, who are governed by voluntary recommendations from a trade body. Persistent evaders A Department for Transport spokeswoman said the guidance aims to be "more motorist friendly" for those who do not persistently evade parking charges. KEY CLAMPING PROPOSALS Councils banned from using clamping as a money-raising measure "Low priority" to cars overstaying beyond 15 minutes, parked on a single yellow line or in a resident's bay without a permit "Medium priority" to meter-feeders and non-payers A 15-minute "period of grace" for cars after meter runs out Clamped cars released within an hour of payment "One illegally-parked car can, and frequently does, cause traffic jams," she said. "This is exacerbated by some motorists who regularly and deliberately contravene parking regulations. "These persistent evaders are often not registered, or not correctly registered, on the DVLA database and therefore think that they can get away with not paying any penalty charges. "We are bringing in quicker clamping and removal times for persistent evaders." Wheel-clampers are being urged to make vehicles which are suspicious in other ways - such as not having a valid tax disk - a top priority. The proposals suggests clampers should give a "low priority" to cars overstaying beyond 15 minutes, parked on a single yellow line or in a resident's bay without a permit. Vehicles to be a "medium priority" include people feeding a meter to stay beyond the maximum time or not paying at all. The document also advises that: "Wheel-clamping may be brought into disrepute if a local authority permits it for what the public may regard as relatively unimportant contraventions." It also advises that clamped cars should be released within an hour of payment. Edmund King, executive director of the RAC Foundation, said: "Motorists will welcome restrictions on wheel clamping as the punishment rarely fits the crime. "Clamping is a crude activity, which should have been outlawed at the time of Dick Turpin." a nice reply on CAG prompts another insight. Quote: The document also says councils should now be able to post PCNs to drivers who drive off after the PA starts to issue the ticket! The BBC seems to have only read 1 page out of 160? YES, but we DON'T see it yet. THIS means that there is no longer a distinction between a stationary vehicle and a moving one. Wardens already abuse their powers, they can now take pics and SAY the vehicle WAS stationary and moved off. The argument "that it is all in the mind of the motorist" is developing, I already have seen it, and will disambiguate it. AND here is more, getting worse, before it gets any better. well here's another one even more vicious, but NOT instantly. what a farce. He said the introduction will be dealt with sensitively (ONLY the introduction that lasts for 5 mins, after that, as ruthlessly and truthlessly as they need the revenue. ) We won’t use Draconian methods instantly,” he added.( The moment after the instant, just you wait for it, draconian is a mild word ) It's called being FIRM but FAIR, keeping the feel good factor in the AIR. After all, it's the 'will of Parliament' and the pill of people. Sorry we forgot the bit about Parliament expressing the will of the people, this is business, no personal feelings. I think it's called agitprop. If they aren't asking to be thrown out. I wonder what our clever public will think next time they come lamb faced to the door asking for your vote. It's no use saying the comparison makes them better than the others, they are ALL 'rhetorical'. They need to be changed whoever they are, every 4 years or sooner. 2 - Ticketting pregnant mothers http://www.expressandstar.co.uk/2007/08/14/no-excuses-in-parking-blitz/ County-wide parking changes will see fines increase to £90 as attendants are told to dish out tickets to broken down vehicles and pregnant mothers who have flouted the rules. The plan to decriminalise offences and put enforcement in the hands of council staff will be agreed on Thursday with the powers being rolled out across the county from October. The changes will bring more wardens and a crackdown on misdemeanours where previously police have not been enforcing the law because of a lack of manpower. A detailed 98-point instruction manual has been created by the newly formed parking chiefs, covering every excuse a canny motorist could think of including broken pay-and-display machines, lost keys and an extra-long visit to the doctor. The new warden’s rule book states it is reasonable to expect a driver to be with their car in the event of a flat tyre. If they are not there a fine is issued. In the instance of a pregnant woman who has parked in the wrong place the guidelines state: “Generally pregnancy is not considered a disability and should not normally lead to the cancellation of a fine. “If a delay is caused by the mother not allowing additional time to deal with her own condition which she is fully aware of the notice should be enforced.” Stafford borough cabinet member for planning and regeneration Doug Davis said: “Quite rightly the police say they just haven’t got the manpower to deal with parking issues, as crime prevention is more important. Wardens will take on responsibility throughout the borough.” He said the introduction will be dealt with sensitively and will start with a widespread education campaign to inform the public of the change. “Wardens will not just appear banging notices on people’s cars. We won’t use Draconian methods instantly,” he added. Fines are increasing by 50 per cent from £60 to £90 but the reduced rate for prompt payment will remain £30 and the changes will be phased in first in Staffordshire Moorlands and East Staffordshire followed by Newcastle-under-Lyme and Stafford in November. Cannock, Tamworth and Lichfield can expect to see the changes in 2008 with South Staffordshire following suit the following year. Council wardens currently operate only in car parks, and motorists in Staffordshire have been getting off lightly. Former police inspector Steve Allen has left the Staffordshire force to manage the new parking department in the Stafford borough. The changes will cost around £400,000 in Stafford alone, and will be paid for with county council cash initially but are expected to be self-funded in each area by the end of the first year. 3 - Wardens confessions, G:\camdencase\Hampstead and Highgate Express - Jude Law's parking nemesis reveals how wardens issue tickets for cash.htm Jude Law's parking nemesis reveals how wardens issue tickets for cash editorial@hamhigh.co.uk 06 September 2007 A FORMER traffic warden has lifted the lid on Camden's parking regime - claiming that wardens get cash bonuses if they slap large numbers of tickets on residents. Paul Winnett, from Grafton Road in Kentish Town, worked for the parking department for nine years as a warden and clamper before resigning in January. He says he left after being told he wouldn't get his annual bonus from Camden's contractor NCP because he did not issue enough tickets. The firm denies setting ticket quotas. But a letter seen by the Ham&High appears to confirm that wardens were offered bonuses - something Camden Council has always denied. Mr Winnett, 38, who was once snapped clamping Jude Law, said: "It has always been the case that wardens are given commission for the number of tickets they issue. "We are little more than ticket generating machines and it breaks your resolve after a bit. There isn't a single person there, including myself unfortunately, that hasn't issued a questionable ticket. "Effectively, Camden is just taking £50 a time when many people have done nothing wrong. I have also heard many times that the people of Hampstead are too rich to bother to appeal and they take advantage of that." "If you don't get enough tickets they will put you in a bit of Camden which is particularly unpleasant. They work you 50 or 60 hours a week and you walk 20 miles a day." A letter was sent to Mr Winnett in April by the regional manager of NCP Michael Adewole confirming the conversation that led to his resignation. It agreed that Mr Winnett's boss had told wardens they would not get bonuses because they hadn't issued enough tickets. NCP has argued over the meaning of words in the letter but the allegations are similar to those previously reported in the Ham&High. In 2004 one of our reporter's went undercover with Camden's former parking bosses Apcoa. He revealed they were using quotas and expected wardens to cover 20 miles a day. Mr Winnett continued: "Camden Council is quite happy to monitor barely trained attendants, but they are not checking how these attendants are being made to behave. "The question is whether the council wants fewer tickets to be issued or not." Another warden who still works at NCP and didn't want to be named, backed-up Mr Winnett's story. He said: "A high-yield attendant will get a bonus and a lower yield one won't. They say bonuses are based on things like attendance and whether complaints have been made, but many attendants will come in every day, have no complaints, but not get it. The feeling is they have not given enough tickets." NCP denied all the allegations made by Mr Winnett about bonuses. They say bonuses are given on other performance criteria, but refused to show the Ham&High the details. A spokesman said: "It is unhelpful to have confusing letters sent out during a grievance procedure. Suffice to say, NCP Services absolutely denies there was any reference to bonuses and penalty charge notice (PCN) numbers in this briefing. "Bonuses paid to employees of NCP Services are never related to PCN numbers. We lobbied the Government last year to make this kind of thing illegal." A Camden Council spokeswoman said: "Parking attendants are under no pressure whatsoever to issue PCNs. "There are no targets for individual parking attendants as we would only expect PCNs to be issued when a contravention has taken place." o April 2005: NCP replaces Apcoa as Camden's parking contractor. o November 2005: The London Motorist Action Group is formed by Hampstead actor Tom Conti. The group is made up of Camden residents fed up with the parking regime. They single out parking boss Cllr John Thane and campaign against him. o May 2006: Camden's Labour administration, including Cllr Thane, is voted out at the local elections. The party later admits it didn't realise the strength of opposition to its parking policies. A Lib-Dem Tory alliance is elected - promising to make parking policies fairer in Camden. o July 2006: The new council abolishes clamping, except the most "persistent evaders". o March 2007: Figures reveal the new council has made a £18.8million profit on parking in its first year, £3.8million more than the previous year under Labour. _________________ Tony Back to top Display posts from previous: All Posts 1 Day 7 Days 2 Weeks 1 Month 3 Months 6 Months 1 Year   Oldest First Newest First          swarb.co.uk Forum Index -> Road Traffic Law All times are GMT + 1 Hour Page 1 of 1   Jump to:  Select a forum   General ---------------- Announcements Administrative Law Banking Charity Law Company Law Computer Law Constitutional Consumer Law Contract Law Criminal Law Damages Defamation Employment Law Equity European Law Family Human Rights Intellectual Property Law Land Landlord and Tenant Law FAQs Litigation Procedure Negligence Other Legal Topics Other Non-law Road Traffic Law Taxation Law Quotes Law Students Just Politics User Profiles   Case Law ---------------- lawindexpro cases   You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group