Westminster City Council caught fining drivers for obeying the law!

[Esinem]

After painstaking research, edit discovered that Westminster City Council have been fining drivers for obeying the law! The Traffic Management Order permits going straight ahead into Sherwood St from Lwr James St, Soho, but WCC erected non-compliant signs, without authority, to enforce a left turn into Brewer St. Those who did not comply were fined! Fortunately, it was nipped in the bud after nearly 400 £120 PCN's were issued in December or this highway robbery could have netted up to £500,000 per annum. It looks like this is not the only case and more are being examined. WCC have increased their fleet of these cars from 2 to 7, so expect more desperate measures.

Edited January 18, 2011 by MARTIN3030
removed links as prev advised

[tomtubby]

After painstaking research, edit discovered that Westminster City Council have been fining drivers for obeying the law! The Traffic Management Order permits going straight ahead into Sherwood St from Lwr James St, Soho, but WCC erected non-compliant signs, without authority, to enforce a left turn into Brewer St. Those who did not comply were fined! Fortunately, it was nipped in the bud after nearly 400 £120 PCN's were issued in December or this highway robbery could have netted up to £500,000 per annum. It looks like this is not the only case and more are being examined. WCC have increased their fleet of these cars from 2 to 7, so expect more desperate measures.

 

Very interesting. Has this been brought to the attention of Councillor Rowley at WCC?

[Esinem]

"Has this been brought to the attention of Councillor Rowley at WCC?"

 

You can bet it has! Oddly, he hasn't replied to me numerous emails or calls but the signs have been changed LBC and The Standard are onto it, with a number of others to come

 

...let's see what the FOI Request asking how many of these have been cancelled/refunded comes back with.

[tomtubby]

"Has this been brought to the attention of Councillor Rowley at WCC?"

 

You can bet it has! Oddly, he hasn't replied to me numerous emails or calls but the signs have been changed LBC and The Standard are onto it, with a number of others to come

 

...let's see what the FOI Request asking how many of these have been cancelled/refunded comes back with.

 

Please do post back as soon as you receive a response to your FOI. Very interesting !!

[Esinem]

Here's the latest: http://nutsville.com/?p=2433

[tomtubby]

Here's the latest: http://nutsville.com/?p=2433

 

Very informative site....

[tomtubby]

Here's the latest: http://nutsville.com/?p=2433

 

 

Is the following article from yesterday's Evening Standard anything to do with this !!!

 

http://lydall.standard.co.uk/2011/02/council-to-refund-tickets-after-soho-road-sign-blunder.html

[Tony P]

Thats the junction!

 

In a statement to the Evening Standard, Westminster’s transport commissioner Martin Low said: “This is an exceptional situation in which because a traffic sign had been installed in error, motorists were wrongly penalised for going straight ahead at a junction with a one way road.

“Any motorist who has wrongly been issued a ticket for going straight over this particular junction should contact the council’s parking department and we will provide a full refund. We would also like to apologise for any inconvenience this may have caused.”

 

 

These arer all videod 'contraventions' and therefore WCC contacted all the RKs fast enough issuing PCNs etc. So why can't they contact them all again, just as fast, with this news, apologise and ask the driver to apply for a refund? Instead they leave it for the motorist to find out and apply!

 

I suppose to do so means they must return all the money to all of the drivers instead of just to those who stumble on this news!

 

Hardly an honourable way of going about rectifying ones error.

 

Proves yet again what we all know, it's all about making money, not justice, fairness or helping traffic move better.

[starfarer]

My biggest complaint about whole of the parking department is no one being held responsible for mistakes/error/mis-judgement like this. If an error of this magnitude had been in any other gov department, I wonder how many would have been sacrificed. Now after the funding cuts, councils are openly eyeing revenue from parking related as an income to cover shortfalls.

 

Anyway very interesting, being following since first posted and media attention finally brought something fruitful to victims. Council should refund 3X original PCN charge if an error is due to faulty signs or marks and pursued in full knowledge.

[green_and_mean]

. Council should refund 3X original PCN charge if an error is due to faulty signs or marks and pursued in full knowledge.

 

Maybe they should also start charging drivers extra for making pointless representations as well then?

[starfarer]

Maybe they should also start charging drivers extra for making pointless representations as well then?

 

The problem is almost all peoples (except few here) have no idea whether the representations made against PCN is pointless or valid. So an informal appeal stage is necessary to determine the facts and for some, it will be the first time ever come across of words like TMO, TRO, TSGRD etc or even "kerb marks". Only then some decide to pursue further as were unsatisfied with the replies received. Now herein lies the big difference. Despite of full knowledge of previous similar cases which the council lost on appeal/didn't pursued further/un-enforceable due to some reasons, they still claim that PCN was issued correctly rather than admit their mistakes. Well they would continue to insist that enforcement was correct....

 

Honestly was surprised that you would come up with "pointless". I do lots of reading here and most thread start with what looks to be pointless points raised which later turns out to be the deal-breaker.

 

Lastly, on the question IMO they do exactly that- charge double making any representations. The 50% discount is to discourage peoples from fighting the PCN. It is like sports world....there never was SALE

[green_and_mean]

The problem is almost all peoples (except few here) have no idea whether the representations made against PCN is pointless or valid. So an informal appeal stage is necessary to determine the facts and for some, it will be the first time ever come across of words like TMO, TRO, TSGRD etc or even "kerb marks". Only then some decide to pursue further as were unsatisfied with the replies received. Now herein lies the big difference. Despite of full knowledge of previous similar cases which the council lost on appeal/didn't pursued further/un-enforceable due to some reasons, they still claim that PCN was issued correctly rather than admit their mistakes. Well they would continue to insist that enforcement was correct....

 

Honestly was surprised that you would come up with "pointless". I do lots of reading here and most thread start with what looks to be pointless points raised which later turns out to be the deal-breaker.

 

Lastly, on the question IMO they do exactly that- charge double making any representations. The 50% discount is to discourage peoples from fighting the PCN. It is like sports world....there never was SALE

 

If people don't know what kerb markings are then they shouldn't even be on the road, its hardly surprising people get so many tickets when they don't even understand the basics of the highway code.

[crem]

If people don't know what kerb markings are then they shouldn't even be on the road, its hardly surprising people get so many tickets when they don't even understand the basics of the highway code.

 

That's a very unfair statement. for the vast majority of people who don't use the main citys, they may well never come across such things. Indeed, even some of the "normal" restrictions that you see all the time in London such as DYL extending right up to property line are frequently ignored in other "minor" towns and citys with cars thinking as long as they park pavement side of the DYL they are OK. Nothing ever comes of this infringement with police cars frequenting these same roads but never apprearing concerned.

[Coupon]

If people don't know what kerb markings are then they shouldn't even be on the road, its hardly surprising people get so many tickets when they don't even understand the basics of the highway code.

 

 

I don't mind admitting that I didn't know what kerb markings beside DYLs meant until I discovered forums like CAG and read up on the subject of parking tickets about 3 years ago.

 

And I have been driving for over 20 years. I just thought, as a lot of people do, that parking on a DYL was a complete no-no and never even looked at the kerb marks.

 

I am not alone now that I know enough - too much maybe - I often find that friends and relatives haven't a clue about DYLs and kerb marks either. An old biddy even tried to take her own photo of my car on a DYL (no kerb blips) when I was clearly loading the other month. She scuttled back into her house sharpish when I roared with laughter, smiled and posed for the camera with the suitcases!

[green_and_mean]

That's a very unfair statement. for the vast majority of people who don't use the main citys, they may well never come across such things. Indeed, even some of the "normal" restrictions that you see all the time in London such as DYL extending right up to property line are frequently ignored in other "minor" towns and citys with cars thinking as long as they park pavement side of the DYL they are OK. Nothing ever comes of this infringement with police cars frequenting these same roads but never apprearing concerned.

 

Sorry I didn't realise those outside cities did a different driving test I thought studying the highway code was a requirement nationwide? I guess next you will be saying those that live on the Isle of Wight probably think its ok to park on a motorway as they don't have any? Its strange that I don't live in the countryside yet learn't what the sign for cattle, wild animals and a ford are yet those that live in the country cannot grasp something as simple as a DYL??

[Esinem]

Is the following article from yesterday's Evening Standard anything to do with this !!!

 

http://lydall.standard.co.uk/2011/02/council-to-refund-tickets-after-soho-road-sign-blunder.html

 

Yep! See http://www.notomob.co.uk for more info

[Esinem]

 

From: Steve

Sent: 04 February 2011 12:23

To: Goad, Kevin

Subject: Traffic signing at junctions

 

Dear Mr Goad

 

I am aware that you had a meeting with Mr Graeme Jones last evening and that as a result of discussions you have agreed to review traffic signing in certain locations where moving traffic violations are regularly enforced by your mobile cctv units.

 

For your information I, as a member of the No To Mob, have had cause to consult the Traffic Signs Manual and it is my conclusion that the signing at various junctions where enforcement regularly takes place, does not comply with the legislation that governs the installation of traffic signs.

 

Please may I respectfully suggest that you suspend enforcement of moving traffic violations at the following sites pending the conclusion of your review. They are:

 

1. St Martins Lane WC2 at its junction with St Martins Place.

2. Clifton Road W9 at its junction with Lanark Road

3. Saville Row W1 at its junction with Conduit Street

4. John Adam Street WC2 at its junction with Villiers Street

5. Moor Street at its junction with Charing Cross Road

6. South Eaton Place SW1 at its junction with Ebury street and Semley Place

7. Westbourne Terrace W2 near its junction with Orsett Terrace

8. St Annes Terrace NW8 at its junction with Circus Road

 

Kindly acknowledge safe receipt of this email by return.

 

Yours sincerely

 

Steve

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Kevin Goad Westminster Head of Parking Kevin Goad Westminster Head of Parking

KGoad@westminster.gov.uk

 

Steve

 

Thanks for your email. The review of sites is already underway and we have suspended enforcement at all sites in the interim.

 

Regards

 

Kevin

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Esinem]

Sorry I didn't realise those outside cities did a different driving test I thought studying the highway code was a requirement nationwide? I guess next you will be saying those that live on the Isle of Wight probably think its ok to park on a motorway as they don't have any? Its strange that I don't live in the countryside yet learn't what the sign for cattle, wild animals and a ford are yet those that live in the country cannot grasp something as simple as a DYL??

 

green-and-mean, whilst we appreciate that you are a paragon of virtue and all knowing, you should appreciate that this thread concerns moving violations and has sweet Fanny Adams to do with kerb blips. That`s another story. Southwark have extorted thousands over 10 months by fining motorists on illegally installed No Loading at Any Time blips (extended by 6.5m beyond what the TMO allowed). Exactly how much will be revealed when they finally reply to my FOI request but I expect it to run into several hundred thousand

[tomtubby]

 

From: Steve

Sent: 04 February 2011 12:23

To: Goad, Kevin

Subject: Traffic signing at junctions

 

Dear Mr Goad

 

I am aware that you had a meeting with Mr Graeme Jones last evening and that as a result of discussions you have agreed to review traffic signing in certain locations where moving traffic violations are regularly enforced by your mobile cctv units.

 

For your information I, as a member of the No To Mob, have had cause to consult the Traffic Signs Manual and it is my conclusion that the signing at various junctions where enforcement regularly takes place, does not comply with the legislation that governs the installation of traffic signs.

 

Please may I respectfully suggest that you suspend enforcement of moving traffic violations at the following sites pending the conclusion of your review. They are:

 

1. St Martins Lane WC2 at its junction with St Martins Place.

2. Clifton Road W9 at its junction with Lanark Road

3. Saville Row W1 at its junction with Conduit Street

4. John Adam Street WC2 at its junction with Villiers Street

5. Moor Street at its junction with Charing Cross Road

6. South Eaton Place SW1 at its junction with Ebury street and Semley Place

7. Westbourne Terrace W2 near its junction with Orsett Terrace

8. St Annes Terrace NW8 at its junction with Circus Road

 

Kindly acknowledge safe receipt of this email by return.

 

Yours sincerely

 

Steve

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Kevin Goad Westminster Head of Parking Kevin Goad Westminster Head of Parking

KGoad@westminster.gov.uk

 

Steve

 

Thanks for your email. The review of sites is already underway and we have suspended enforcement at all sites in the interim.

 

Regards

 

Kevin

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

KG has confirmed that Westminster have suspended enforcement at all of these sites and this is of course encouraging. However... as we speak, bailiffs are enforcing Warrants of Execution for unpaid PCN's, many of which are very likely to be for these particular sites...... If, after the review, it is agreed by KG and his team that PCN's should not have been issued for these sites........will be agree to requests from the public for refunds if bailiffs have been paid.

[green_and_mean]

green-and-mean, whilst we appreciate that you are a paragon of virtue and all knowing, you should appreciate that this thread concerns moving violations and has sweet Fanny Adams to do with kerb blips. That`s another story. Southwark have extorted thousands over 10 months by fining motorists on illegally installed No Loading at Any Time blips (extended by 6.5m beyond what the TMO allowed). Exactly how much will be revealed when they finally reply to my FOI request but I expect it to run into several hundred thousand

 

How exactly are you going to determin how many of the vehicles parked in the 'addtional' 6.5m? 6.5 m is just over a car length are you telling me thousands of pounds have been gained from a single parking space if so how do you know this? It is impossible without examining every single PCN to detrmin its exact location in the street to detrmin if its been issued in the technically unrestricted bit of road.

[dw190]

How exactly are you going to determin how many of the vehicles parked in the 'addtional' 6.5m? 6.5 m is just over a car length are you telling me thousands of pounds have been gained from a single parking space if so how do you know this? It is impossible without examining every single PCN to detrmin its exact location in the street to detrmin if its been issued in the technically unrestricted bit of road.

 

I think you will find that its not how many parked in the "aditional" 6.5m but that the whole length covered by the TMO is classed incorrectly signed, therefore ALL tickets issued should be Annuled.

 

We've had quite a lot of wrongly signed here in Bolton and still have all of our Pedestrian Zones and Bus Lanes unenforceable because the highly paid experts in our Councils legal department can't get it right.

[green_and_mean]

I think you will find that its not how many parked in the "aditional" 6.5m but that the whole length covered by the TMO is classed incorrectly signed, therefore ALL tickets issued should be Annuled.

 

We've had quite a lot of wrongly signed here in Bolton and still have all of our Pedestrian Zones and Bus Lanes unenforceable because the highly paid experts in our Councils legal department can't get it right.

 

I think you will find you are wrong the restriction is laid down in the traffic order if a street is restricted from point a to point b even if the line carries on to point c it doesn't remove the correct restriction between a and b. The same applies to bays if there is a TMO for 8 p&d bays in a road and a 9th exists without an order it doesn't mean you can park free in all of them.

[dw190]

I think you will find you are wrong the restriction is laid down in the traffic order if a street is restricted from point a to point b even if the line carries on to point c it doesn't remove the correct restriction between a and b. The same applies to bays if there is a TMO for 8 p&d bays in a road and a 9th exists without an order it doesn't mean you can park free in all of them.

 

Well I've had a TMO that read 200m from a point that was 300+m from the point and the whole lot was suspended from enforcement until the TMO was corrected.

 

Unless the bays are numbered every bay could be number 9 and the TMO would be seriously flawed, enough to have enforcement suspended until a bay was removed or a new TMO was put in place.

[green_and_mean]

Well I've had a TMO that read 200m from a point that was 300+m from the point and the whole lot was suspended from enforcement until the TMO was corrected.

 

Unless the bays are numbered every bay could be number 9 and the TMO would be seriously flawed, enough to have enforcement suspended until a bay was removed or a new TMO was put in place.

 

Why would they corect the TMO, the TMO is set down in law after consultation and planning by the highways dept the wrong line is painted by a labourer pushing a machine its far more likely the marking is wrong unless the painter is psychic.

 

Every bay could not be number 9 as each bay would have a corresponding location in the TMO, I have never seen a TMO that just says something like 6 bays somewhere in the High st.

 

Try parking in the middle of a 100m DYL and then going to PATAS because its 1m too long, you would be wasting a stamp just sending in the letter. The contravention is not against the sign its a breach of a traffic order, if the place you parked is restricted in the traffic order and correctly marked with the required marking ie a yellow line then you are in contravention it does not matter if the rest of the street is restricted or not or marked as restricted the only concern is where you are parked.

[dw190]

if the place you parked is restricted in the traffic order and correctly marked with the required marking ie a yellow line then you are in contravention it does not matter if the rest of the street is restricted or not or marked as restricted the only concern is where you are parked.

 

Is this not what we're talking about "incorrect markings" against "correct markings"?

 

If a line has a piece missing it is not a line. ___________ _______________ _________________