Jbw group/whyte lose medway contract

[green_and_mean]

Personally, (speaking with my bus driver's hat on) I think that the 'no stopping' restrictions on town/city centre bus stop/bays should continue to be enforced. legislation is comming in to make all service buses low floor and wheel chair accessable so it follows that buses will have to be able to pull up near the kerb. Cars occupying stops, even for a few seconds will make this difficult.

 

I didn't mean the they would stop enforcing! The changes are to allow Councils to remove signs cluttering the street and to use signs without complicated approval for non standard signs.

[crem]

legislation is comming in to make all service buses low floor and wheel chair accessable so it follows that buses will have to be able to pull up near the kerb. Cars occupying stops, even for a few seconds will make this difficult.

 

Only if the car is actually there when the bus pulls in!

[sailor sam]

Only if the car is actually there when the bus pulls in!

 

Makes no odds.... still an offence for a car to stop there if it has a 'no stopping' restriction. Experince shows that cars often wait in a bus stop while someone 'nips' into a shop ect and then a bus turns up having to stop well away from the kerb. So better to maintain the restrictions and enforce them when necessary.

[crem]

I wasn't disagreeing with your point of it being an offence sailor sam, I was simply being pedantic regarding your point that if a car stopped there for a few seconds it makes it difficult for the bus to pull in. By definition, this point is only true if a bus is pulling in during those few seconds, at all other times, although still an offence, it isn't making it difficult for the bus, coz the bus isn't there!

[Nystagmite]

Personally, (speaking with my bus driver's hat on) I think that the 'no stopping' restrictions on town/city centre bus stop/bays should continue to be enforced. legislation is comming in to make all service buses low floor and wheel chair accessable so it follows that buses will have to be able to pull up near the kerb. Cars occupying stops, even for a few seconds will make this difficult.

 

Where I live, so many people do park in the bus bays. Not only does this make it harder for the bus to pull up, it also means they (cars) are blocking so that you can't see when the bus is coming. It only seems to be where there are double yellow lines too...

[letsmakeamark]

She was appointed director in august of this year. Links show her as being a secretary for a company called S.R.WALKER AND CO. However she seems to have resigned her post and dissolved the company despite the company still having a debenture outstanding with Natwest bank.

[seanamarts]

S.R.WALKER AND CO. Sounds very familiar, Isnt that another bailiff company?

[letsmakeamark]

Yes. It is a bailiff company.

[letsmakeamark]

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?239903-Carole-kenney-joins-jbw previous thread

[letsmakeamark]

This news is a bit old but it turns out that they both have been banished into thin air. Nwelyn and davies enforcement have replaced the pair of terrible twins. I wander how many other councils have shafted jbw and whyte and co ?

 

Medway Council has awarded a contract worth £1.6m to four bailiff firms for revenue collection and parking fine enforcement. Chandlers, Rundle & Co, Newlyn and Davies Enforcement have all received an equal £400,000 share of the contract, which runs until April 2012 with an option to extend for another two years.

 

The contracts have been divided into four "parcels", two for recovery of revenues and benefits, including council tax and housing benefit overpayment, and two for parking services. Rundle & Co and Chandlers will split evenly the revenue and benefits services while Davies and Newlyn have been allocated the parking enforcement work.

 

The council, for the most recent financial year, has a total of £189m (after the deduction of benefits, discounts and exemptions) outstanding. In addition, around £500,000 of recoverable benefit overpayments are passed to debt agencies.

 

The revenues and benefits recovery work has been divided on a geographical basis with one parcel covering Chatham and Rochester and the other covering Gillingham and Strood. Parking services has been allocated on a 50/50 basis with the firms competing against each other as the council looks to benchmark the poorer performer.

 

According to a council document from November 2010, Rundle & Co, Whyte & Co and JBW were named as bailiffs.

 

The document stated: "Following an intensive procurement process officers have satisfied themselves with the performance of the bailiffs concerned and their ability to produce or better this at Medway. By selecting two companies for both the revenues & benefits element and the parking services element, it is possible to benchmark the bailiff companies against each other making it easier to challenge the poorer performer."

 

Original here :

http://www.credittoday.co.uk/article/8455/online-news/bailiffs-win-1.6m-council-contract

Edited December 23, 2011 by citizenB
put some spacing in to make reading easier.

[letsmakeamark]

Enforcement firm JBW Group has lost an appeal against the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) over the way it conducted a tender process in which large contracts were awarded to the firm’s competitors.Lord Justice Elias and Lord Justice Kitchin dismissed JBW’s appeal against a High Court judgement which ruled that the MoJ had not breached the Public Contract Regulations 2006 (the Regulations).

 

JBW issued proceedings against the MoJ in 2009, after losing out on three contracts in a tender for bailiff services to be provided to magistrates courts in particular regions of England and Wales.

 

The firm alleged the MoJ had breached the Regulations by leaking information and assisting a rival bidder.

 

It also alleged there was an implied contract that the MoJ would consider tenders fairly and transparently in accordance with the terms of the tender invitation, and that the terms of this contract had been breached.

 

But High Court judge Master Victoria McCloud dismissed the claims, arguing that the contract agreements issued by the MoJ were “service concession contracts” and not “public service contracts”.

 

Service concession contracts are specifically excluded from the scope of the Regulations, and the Master also ruled that a contract could not be implied in the manner alleged by JBW.

 

The firm’s subsequent appeal hinged on whether the contract agreements were service concessions or public service contracts.

 

The MoJ asserted the contracts were a concession, as payments for the bailiff service were made by third party defaulters, with the risk of non-payment transferred from the MoJ to the contractor.

 

This is in contrast to a public services contract, where the provider is remunerated directly by the contracting authority.

 

The point of law in question also dealt with the level of risk undertaken by the provider. In this instance, the court asserted that where the provider was remunerated exclusively by a third party, the transfer by the contracting authority of a “very limited” operating risk was enough to classify the contract as a service concession, negating the Regulations.

 

On the point of the implied contract, Lord Justice Elias contended that JBW’s counsel was using the implied term as a means of expanding the reach of EU law, a move the Justice said was not legitimate.

 

Jamie Waller, JBW’s chief executive, said: “We sought clarification from the courts, the response to which we received stating that the procurement of bailiff services do not fall within the public service contract regulations. On receipt of this information we decided not to continue with our complaint.

 

“Our relationship with the MOJ has remained strong during this time of clarification and we are pleased with the professional manner in which we were treated and able to conclude our original concerns.”

 

 

 

FULL JUDGEMENT HERE :

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2012/8.html

Edited January 18, 2012 by citizenB
spacing for easier reading

[brassnecked]

They will not be happy bunnies then. Tough

[Simmo52]

Didn't JBW sue Westminster Council a few years ago and lose too? Nothing like biting the hand that feeds you....

[letsmakeamark]

by Dan Bloom

A campaign group has hailed what it claims is a “landmark” judgement saying Medway Council should restrict the use of CCTV cars.

 

The council has used the camera cars to fine more than 50,000 drivers breaking traffic laws since 2008, bringing in more than £1.6 million.

 

But a judgement has said they should only be used in “difficult or sensitive” circumstances – otherwise foot patrols should be used instead.

 

The council says it already follows these rules and the case was a one-off.

However, a tribunal said its definition of “difficult or sensitive” was lacking in what campaigners claim is a test case with wide implications.

 

It began last year when Chatham resident Jackie Hubbard was fined £60 for pulling over in a taxi rank in Ordnance Street for 63 seconds.

 

She asked anti-CCTV campaign group NoToMob to take the case to a Traffic Penalty Tribunal, an independent body which judges disputed fines.

 

Mrs Hubbard won her 13-month battle, mainly because a sign read “no waiting” instead of “no stopping”.

 

But adjudicator John O’Higgins said his decision was strengthened because the council did not act “fairly or proportionately” and should have used an on-foot officer, instead of sending her a fine in the post.

 

The council insisted it was a “difficult or sensitive” area because it was near a school and residents had abused CCTV car drivers – something the adjudicator dismissed.

 

“Verbal abuse… occurs all too frequently,” he said. “I am not satisfied this is capable of amounting to an adequate justification. It is unclear why the proximity of a school should be of any relevance.”

NoToMob campaigners (anti-CCTV car) at the new Chatham Waterfront bus station during a protest last year

 

There was “no evidence” the council had acted fairly or proportionately, he said, adding: “The vehicle had stopped for just over a minute, with the driver remaining in the vehicle and where no obstruction was caused.”

 

NoToMob spokesman Nigel Wise, 60, who has led tribunals against several councils, claims the judgement brings thousands of previous fines into question.

 

CCTV cars often park outside schools and drivers claim they are fined for minor breaches.

 

Mr Wise said: “They issue tickets willy-nilly in the hope that people will pay.

"Most people can’t be bothered to fight – that’s not a fair way to conduct parking enforcement.”

 

The council said it has been correctly restricting the use of CCTV cars for more than a year, and the case was a one-off.

 

A spokesman said: “This is not new and has actually been happening since April 2011 when, following advice from the adjudicator, we changed the way the car was used so that it was only used to enforce when it was not deemed safe or feasible to issue tickets on foot.”

 

The council spent £850 submitting more than 200 pages of evidence to the tribunal.

 

More extreme claims by Mr Wise, including that every single CCTV car ticket was void because of faulty paperwork, were dismissed.

 

The council spokesman added: “We are pleased that the adjudicator has found no case to answer in regards to [these] inaccurate claims. We are happy to respect and abide by the adjudicator’s decision.”

Thursday, June 21 2012

 

 

Original here : http://www.kentonline.co.uk/kentonline/news/2012/june/22/spy_cars.aspx

Edited June 22, 2012 by citizenB
spacing to make for easier reading

[letsmakeamark]

Medway CCTV parking fine car in 'landmark' ruling

 

Parking tickets are issued after the CCTV camera car captures parking offenders

 

Campaigners have hailed an appeal against a parking ticket issued in Chatham as a landmark ruling against CCTV camera "spy cars".

 

The appeal was upheld against a £70 fine issued by Medway Council to a driver captured by the camera car waiting for 63 seconds at a taxi rank.

Campaign group NoToMob said the appeal proved the camera car was being used in breach of government guidelines.

 

But Medway said it was using the car correctly and would continue to do so.

The ticket was issued after the driver was spotted allegedly illegally parked in Ordnance Street.

 

The tribunal ruled the driver did not have to pay the fine because the signage at the taxi rank said "no waiting" rather than "no stopping" and therefore the alleged offence did not occur.

 

But it also reminded the council of government guidelines that CCTV cars should only be used in places where it was difficult for traffic wardens to get to on foot.

 

'Contest the ticket' In mitigation, the council said the taxi rank was near a school and there had been instances of verbal abuse towards its officers.

 

NoToMob spokesman Nigel Wise said the campaigners believed anybody who received a parking ticket after their car was spotted by the camera should appeal.

 

"It is quite clear that the car is being used in circumstance where it should not be used," he said.

 

"Medway Council operate a system of issuing tickets, then when people appeal they do not contest the ticket at the parking tribunal."

 

Medway assistant director Andy McGrath said the council had addressed issues of where it could use the car 14 months ago.

 

"The car is predominantly deployed outside schools every morning and every afternoon of term time, and we believe that we are using the car appropriately," he said.

 

"If people think they have been issued a ticket incorrectly then we signpost people towards the appeal route. We are happy to receive the appeals."

 

 

Original here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-18547271

Edited June 22, 2012 by citizenB
spacing to make for easier reading

[letsmakeamark]

Spy car catchers: Drivers fed up with CCTV patrol vehicle take dozens of photos of it illegally parked

 

Angry residents are so fed up with being spied on by a CCTV parking patrol car they are turning cameras on it themselves

 

 

 

 

Illegal: CCTV patrol car on double yellow line SWNS

 

 

A busy town centre is an unusual setting for counter-espionage.

Angry residents are so fed up with being spied on by a CCTV parking patrol car they are turning cameras on it themselves.

They have taken dozens of photos of the Toyota illegally parked or on double yellow lines after a local was fined £60 for stopping on a taxi rank for one minute.

Campaigner Nigel Wise, 60, said: “People are hitting back against the spy car and catching it getting up to no good itself.”

Medway Council’s parking patrol car has pulled in £1.6million in fines in the four years it has been in use in Chatham, Kent.

Residents turned on the council when motorist Jackie Hubbard was slapped with a ticket in May last year.

She asked Mr Wise’s NoToMoB campaign group for help and won her appeal to overturn the fine at a hearing in Maidstone this month.

Town Hall bosses claimed the fine was justified but adjudicator John O’Higgins disagreed, and said: “The vehicle had stopped on the taxi rank for just over a minute.

"The driver remained in the vehicle and no obstruction was caused.”

Mr O’Higgins advised the council to only use the CCTV car when it is unsafe or unfeasible to issue tickets on foot.

Mr Wise said: “It sets a very bad example. There is usually provision within traffic enforcement orders for them to be able to park on double yellow lines, but it’s wholly wrong.

"It smacks of double standards.”

A Medway Council spokesman said yesterday: “We are happy to respect and abide by the adjudicator’s decision.”

 

 

Original here : http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/chatham-drivers-fed-up-with-cctv-907268

[tomtubby]

This looks very interesting !!

 

I will have a good read later this evening....

[spartathisis]

Kirklees Concil in West Yorks introduced one(?) of these last year. It was intended to cruise around schools, but is no found cruising the streets of the local town centres (Huddersfield, Batley, Dewsbury etc). The council announced a few months ago that it had collected 3x the fines it expected in 12 months in a 4 month period, obviously bumped up by the town centre cruising. Looks as if they should not be doing this?

 

Would it be ok if I linked this thread to the local newspaper? See if they can shine a light on the local councils latest bad practice (there have been loads ).

[letsmakeamark]

Ninety Medway restaurants fail to meet standards following food hygiene inspections

 

02 May 2014

by Lizzie Massey

 

 

Almost 90 food businesses in Medway are in need of serious improvement, according to the Food Standards Agency (FSA).

 

Seven have been given the lowest possible rating of 0 which means they need urgent improvement, and have had to stop trading.

But there are almost 60 more requiring ‘major improvement’ and a further 23 businesses for which ‘improvement is necessary’. The Medway Messenger has obtained the figures following a succession of grim headlines detailing restaurants overrun with cockroaches and mice.

 

 

A pub and a restaurant have been found to be infested by mice

 

 

A total of 87 businesses in Medway are not up to scratch, which is equivalent to around 11% of the 767 premises rated by the FSA.

Last week the Messenger reported on Zia Cheema, the owner of Lahore Karahi House in Gillingham High Street, who was fined after his takeaway failed its inspection because of an infestation of cockroaches.

Cheema also owns Lahore Meat & Grocers in the same street, which was also given a rating of zero earlier this year. But it is not just independents which have been found in a filthy state.

 

 

The boss of the Lahore takeaway in Gillingham was fined

 

 

Others to fall foul of inspectors recently include large chains like The Real China in Chatham Maritime and the Dixy Chicken and Pizza franchise in Gillingham, which has been told it needs ‘urgent improvement’ following a zero rating.

Medway council’s environmental health officers were alerted to Lahore by a customer who was disgusted by the state of the toilets and a foul smell. A mice infestation briefly closed popular Rochester pub the Ye Arrow at the start of this year.

With routine inspections happening between six months and three years – depending on how risky the business is deemed to be –concerns have been raised over the state of other premises in Medway.

 

 

 

 

Roughly 80% of Medway’s food businesses are ‘good’ or ‘very good’ and the rest are ‘satisfactory’.

Cllr Peter Hicks, head of environmental health at Medway Council, said: “We enforce the findings of inspections and if a premises is found to fall below standards it is closed. There are a lot of premises in Medway and very few below standard.

 

 

Real China restaurant, Chatham Maritime

 

 

 

“If the public have any concerns they should rely on their own judgement and go to restaurants they know well and have had a positive experience at.”

 

 

Original story here :

 

 

http://www.kentonline.co.uk/medway/news/shocking-truth-of-our-dirty-16712/

[locutus]

Check your local takeaway out....

 

 

http://ratings.food.gov.uk/

[letsmakeamark]

I had a run in with these clowns a few years ago. I now think it is time I started to release all of the paperwork I have in relation to my dealings with them. Along with the council they were working for. I have complete records of what how and when things happened. I am just converting them to PDF. Once done will upload.

[Conniff]

Will look forward to reading.

[brassnecked]

I expect JBW will try to serve Bankfodder with a takedown notice

[ploddertom]

I would suggest that they are sent to admin for perusal first - admin@consumeractiongroup.co.uk - close any spaces up.

[brassnecked]

I would suggest that they are sent to admin for perusal first - admin@consumeractiongroup.co.uk - close any spaces up.

 

Good call PT