Havering Council Parking Ticket Scandal – Part 1

14th March 202314th March 2023 The Havering Daily 3 Comments min read

Today, Mr. L Jones, a resident of Havering, reveals the alleged misconduct of the Havering Council’s Parking Department. He alleges that the parking department knowingly issues illegal parking tickets to generate revenue. According to Mr. Jones, the council is encouraging its parking attendants to issue incorrect parking tickets, which is contrary to the Code of Practice on Civil Parking Enforcement 2018 (CoPoCPE) and the council’s Traffic Management Order (TMO). He asserts that this conduct amounts to criminal offenses like Obtaining Monies by Deception and Perverting the Course of Justice.

Mr Jones claims that every incident mentioned in the article is backed up by factual, documented, and first-hand evidence from multiple reliable sources. He highlights that any illegal, underhand, or incorrect Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) should not be issued if the reasons for doing so are in breach of the CoPoCPE.

Mr Jones writes,

Havering Council’s Parking Department are knowingly and actively encouraging their parking attendants to issue illegal, underhand and incorrect parking tickets contrary to the Code of Practice on Civil Parking Enforcement 2018, (CoPoCPE) and the Council’s Traffic Management Order, (TMO). These actions, designed and carried out purely for the purpose of generating revenue, are tantamount to attempting to both, Obtain Monies by Deception and Perverting the Course of Justice. Both are criminal offences, something the Parking Department believes doesn’t apply to them.

I know these are very bold and controversial statements to make, but as readers will find out as they progress through the article, every incident mentioned is backed up with entirely factual, documented, and first-hand evidence. All from reliable multiple sources.

Any further mention to CoPoCPE also includes the Council’s TMO. Another very important note to keep in mind as you read through this article. In literal terms and deceivingly misused by the Council, a Penalty Charge Notice, (PCN), is issued correctly when it is placed, either on the vehicle, or in the hands of the motorist. It is contents of the PCN that are wrong, as well as the reasons why they are written up in the first place, before the PCN is issued. Any illegal, underhand and incorrect PCNs should never be written up at all, let alone issued, if the reasons for doing so are in breach of the CoPoCPE. Throughout the remainder of this article, the words, ‘issue, issues, issued and issuing’, refer to the content and reasons for the PCN being wrong, in any tense, past present or future, as well as the placing of the PCN on the vehicle.

In our first instance, the Councillor in Charge of Parking received two PCNs. Each time for the same reason, failing to display a valid Authority to Park when a correct Authority to Park was on display. Of course, being in such a position the Councillor was able to, via the correct procedures, successfully appeal the PCNs. In their agreement to cancel, the Parking Department gave the impression that they were doing the Councillor a favour.

Their reply to the appeal reads, “On this occasion, it has been decided to cancel the PCN”. Really, ‘On this occasion…’? Why, on this occasion, was it concluded that the two PCNs were issued incorrectly, when the real question is, why were they issued in the first place? Council cop out No.1… The parking department cannot comment specifically on this because the person who is writing the article is not the owner of the vehicle to which the PCNs were issued. If the contents and reasons for every PCN issued are correct, why are appeals upheld? Cop out No. 2… ‘We are really sorry, but on this occasion, the parking attendant made a mistake. As a result we cancelled the PCNs’. What utter waffle – they made the same mistake twice.

Justify! The Council will have been fully aware that the PCNs were issued incorrectly. Unfortunately, on this occasion, they picked on the wrong vehicle. The motorist fought back against the underhand and incorrectly issued PCNs and the parking department had no alternative but to cancel. Seems to me as if there are an incredible amount of occasions when parking attendants make mistakes. There are, but not according to the parking department.

The second instance, the biggest, and still ongoing scandal of all, involves the on-street pay & display machine located in Elm Park Avenue opposite the Car Wash. This machine has, as have many others, been out of order for some considerable time. A result of the previous Council administration’s poor organisation and judgement when purchasing them and not including a clause that stated, ‘spares must be available for a minimum of ten years’. If my memory serves me correctly, they were ‘going out of order’ not long after they were installed, and not just due to vandalism either.

Back on topic. The only pay & display machine in Elm Park Avenue has a plastic bag over it and a notice clearly stating that it is out of order and parking is free. Yet, if you park for longer than 3 hours, the council will issue you with a PCN, ‘Parked longer than permitted’, (Contravention Code 30). This, they state, verbally, and in writing, is because the pole-mounted sign at the location shows ‘max 3 hours’ and the motorist has been parked for longer than 3 hours. The same sign also shows “Pay at machine”. There is NO mention that 3 hours is a maximum, nor is it limited to 3 hours. As the machine is covered up and clearly out of order, drivers are led to believe, by way of the notice attached, parking is free. When parking attendants were challenged, their replies were ‘the sign says maximum of 3 hours and we have been instructed by the Council to issue the PCNs’. Why? REVENUE! The machine is out of order, the notice says free parking, and the sign does not apply anyway as the CoPoCPE paragraph, in italics, below, clarifies. Not so according to the Parking Department.

This raises other questions. It is a ticketing offence to park in an on-street parking bay without clearly displaying a valid pay & display ticket or voucher. It is also a ticketing offence to be parked without payment of a parking charge. ABSOLUTELY NO PCNs are written up and issued for these contraventions, yet the parking department are adamant that the pole-mounted sign showing ‘3 hours’, applies, (even when a notice on the machine says parking is free), and as such, they can issue a PCN. WRONG!! The Council knows this, but as most people are bullied, frightened and intimidated into paying, they do. MORE REVENUE!

The following paragraph is taken from the CoPoCPE – 2018…

“Where an on-street payment machine, such as a pay-and-display or payment terminal is ‘out of order’, CEOs should not issue a PCN to vehicles unless there is an alternative means of payment available. This includes a different machine nearby or an alternative method of payment such as mobile phone payments. Where a PCN is issued, the CEO should record details of any note on display showing ‘out of order’ machine, the location of the faulty machine and the location of the nearest working machine, if appropriate. The onus should be on the motorist to pay for parking and take reasonable steps to do so.”

It is quite obvious from the above that PCNs cannot be issued, when an on-street pay & display machine is out of order unless there is an alternative means of payment, i.e., another machine, or a reference to pay via a mobile app. At this location there are NONE! The machine is covered up! There is a notice stating the machine is out of order and ‘PARKING IS FREE’! There is NO way of knowing that the motorist can use any alternative method to pay! There is NO mention that the pole-mounted sign, (which says ‘pay at machine’), is still in force! There is NO mention that the motorist should find an alternative place to park! By reading the sign and attending the covered up, out of order pay & display machine, the motorist has taken all the reasonable steps they can to pay for parking. As there are NO means to do so, parking is ‘FREE’. And, as an additional ‘stab in the back’ by the parking attendants,

NO details are taken of any notes that may be on display in the vehicle being issued a PCN, and NO details are taken of the machine being out of order. If the parking attendant’s notes showed an on-street pay & display machine was out of order with NO other means of payment available, and a notice showing parking was free, then it is obvious that a PCN cannot be issued. Equally, it must be pointed out, a motorist can receive a PCN for not being parked wholly within a marked parking bay. In the case of this location, and 95% of all the on-street parking bays in Havering, the lines are all but visible, and if they are not clearly defined and visible, a PCN cannot be issued for that contravention. Be assured, this parking department will try it on!

It doesn’t stop there though. In the next instance, not only does the council issue incorrect PCNs, they are also sending out incorrect Notice of Rejection (NoR) letters with completely inaccurate reasons for refusing the appeal. A motorist, having been the recipient of a PCN issued with the contravention code 30, appealed on the grounds that the machine was out order and a notice on the machine stated parking was free, therefore parking was free. The letter they got back was totally unbelievable. You couldn’t make it, but the parking department certainly did.

The NoR states “Bays are enforced Monday to Saturday from 8:30am to 6:30pm, maximum stay 3hr, no return within 1 hour. Drivers have a responsibility to check for parking signs and to park in accordance with them. As noted on the machine and car park signs, if a Pay & Display machine is not operational, drivers are advised to pay for parking using RingGo, or look for an alternative place to park. All the information relating to the parking zone locator to pay by phone/app is labelled on each machine. I am satisfied that a contravention occurred and the Penalty Charge Notice was issued correctly”. Note… the words ‘…was issued correctly’. Yes it was, as per paragraph 3 above. It was the reason the PCN was written up that is incorrect but the Council cleverly chooses to ignore that. The NoR paragraphs irrevocably prove the incompetence and dirty tactics employed by the Council as a means to generate revenue.

Bearing in mind, to be legally enforceable, details have to be accurate, so with this in mind I will expand on the reasons quoted above.

1. Bays are… … maximum stay 3h, no return within 1 hr. The sign at the location clearly shows, “Mon-Sat 8:30 am – 6:30 pm 3 hours No return within 3 hours Pay at machine”. There is NO reference to a maximum time, and it clearly shows “no return within 3 hours” not 1 hour as stated.

2. Drivers have a responsibility… …in accordance with them. The driver checked the sign and followed the instruction to pay at machine.

3. As noted on the machine and car park signs… …or look for an alternative place to park. The machine is ON-STREET, NOT IN A CAR PARK; totally different contraventions apply to off-street parking. There are NO signs giving the driver any information that they should pay by RingGo, NOR find an alternate place to park.

4. All the information relating to the parking… …is labelled on each machine. The machine is covered up and plainly out of order. There is NO way the driver can be informed that they should pay by RingGo, NOR find an alternate place to park, NOR be aware that the pole-mounted sign is still in force. In fact, a notice on the pay and display states Parking is Free! IT IS!

5. I am satisfied that… Penalty Charge Notice was issued correctly. Once again, refer to paragraph 3 above. The PCN should not have been written up at all, let alone issued! But that doesn’t matter to the parking department. They are out to generate revenue by fair means or foul. And in this case, foul, in more ways than one. When they can’t even get a PCN right, do you really think they care about getting the NoR details right as well?

6. NO details were recorded by the attendant that the machine was out of order, NOR the nearest working machine at that location. There isn’t one! If notes were made, they were NOT included on the PCN. If the parking attendants had made notes, as required by the CoPoCPE, that the machine was out of order and had a notice saying parking was free, not that it seems to matter to the parking department, such PCNs would never have been issued in any instance, and if, as they are, then those notes would have allowed the motorists’ appeals to be upheld. As stated in the CoPoCPE.

7. The driver checks the pole-mounted sign, goes to pay, machine out of order, NO visible instructions to pay using RingGo, NO visible instructions to find an alternate place to park and NO visible instructions stating that the sign still applies. But, there is a notice saying PARKING IS FREE, so that is what the driver does. What do they get for their lawful actions, an illegal PCN when NO contravention has been committed? Plus, to enhance an even bigger farce, further compounding the appalling errors made in the NoR letter, a picture of the actual post-mounted sign at the location was included as well. It bears absolutely NO resemblance to the description in the NoR. Plus, not only are the paragraphs in the NoR completely and utterly wrong, they apply to a totally different contravention altogether! Once again proving, without a doubt, the parking department are just making it up as they go along. And, as they are so full of themselves, believe they can get away with it. Problem is, they do!

Support Local Journalism
We at The Havering Daily appreciate your support of quality journalism. Your generous donation, no matter the size, allows us to continue bringing unbiased and informative news to the community. Your contribution helps us maintain our independence and allows us to continue providing high-quality journalism. Thank you for valuing the work we do and for supporting our mission

Thank you

Stay up to date with all of our latest updates and content by following us on our social media accounts!