Havering Council’s Parking Ticket Scandal – Part 4

In continuation from Mr. Jones’s previous articles, Mr Jones presents a set of questions about the legality of parking enforcement actions taken by the Parking Department, particularly related to an out-of-order pay and display machine in Elm Park Avenue, and requests proof that the actions are in compliance with CoPoCPE and TMO regulations.

Abbreviations as used in this article….

CoPoCPE – Code of Practice on Civil Parking Enforcement

TMO – Traffic Management Orders

PCNs – Penalty Charge Notice/s

TSRaGD 2002 – Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002

P&D – Pay & Display machine

ULEZ – Ultra Low Emission Zone

MTC – Moving Traffic Contraventions, e.g. Box Junctions, Bus Lanes, No right Turns etc.

CEH V2a – Civil Enforcement Handbook V2a

CEO/s – Criminal Exploitation Official/s

Once again, my thanks to all those who have helped with contributions to this and previous articles, especially Mr Mustard whose information has been exceedingly useful.

As many of you will have already read in the previous articles, the Parking Department was given the opportunity to respond via a set of questions submitted at the same time. After you have read the questions, together with the reply from the Councillor and Parking Department, I will leave it up to you to make up your own minds as to whether they have exonerated themselves, or, confirmed that the situations described in the articles prove just how unlawful their actions really are. AND THEY CONTINUE TO DO SO WITHOUT REMORSE. More revelations below.

All of the questions asked are below….

All answers to the questions must refer to the CoPoCPE and/or Councils TMO that allows the Parking Department to issue PCNs, or conduct the actions they have, as raised in the article.

Any references to the words, ‘issue, issues, issued and issuing’, refers to the content and reasons for the PCN/s being wrong, in any tense, past present or future, as well as the placing of the PCN on the vehicle.

For questions 1 thru 15, the location referred to is the ‘Out of Order’ Pay & Display Machine in Elm Park Avenue, and the contravention code referred to is Code: 30.

Questions 16 and 17 are generic.

1.  Confirm that the Councils TMO fully complies with the CoPoCPE and the CEOs follow those documents correctly and lawfully.

2.  Provide proof that the Parking Department can issue PCNs when the pole-mounted sign shows ‘3 hours’, and a notice on the out of order machine states parking is free.

3.  Provide proof that the Parking Department can pick and choose to issue PCNs by deciding the sign is correct and the notice on the machine does not apply.

4.  Provide proof that the Parking Department can pick and choose which PCN, or PCNs, to cancel, or not, when the PCNs have been issued at the same location, under the exact same circumstances and for the same contravention.

5.  Provide proof that the Parking Department is able reject an appeal by way of a NoR letter citing another contravention code which is in complete contradiction to the contravention code that was

given in the PCN.

6.  Provide redacted copies of the CEO’s pocket books (or equivalent electronic versions), of the notes that attendants are legally required to make when a pay & display machine was/is out of order, including any notes left in the vehicle and any notes on the out of order pay & display machine.

7.  Provide redacted copies of the CEO’s pocket books (or equivalent electronic versions), that proves, on the second observation, all the vehicles valve positions matched those made on the first observation, before any PCN was issued). (refer para 2 above).

8.  Provide proof that the CEO’s notes were used by the Parking Department to confirm the contraventions were lawful, and there was no ambiguity that would have upheld a motorist’s appeal.

9.  Provide proof that all the PCN’s were issued correctly before the Parking Department changed the notice on the out of order machine, (w/c 23/01/2023). (refer para 2 above).

10. Provide proof that no other PCNs have been issued based on the new and still incorrect notice, stuck to the out of order machine, (w/c 23/01/2023). (refer para 2 above).

11. Provide proof that no other PCNs have been issued based on the pole-mounted sign since the new and incorrect notice was stuck to the out of order machine, (w/c 23/01/2023). (refer para 2 above).

12. Provide proof that all parking restrictions were clearly and correctly signed and marked, and there was no ambiguity that could confuse a motorist in to not believing it was free to park.

13. At the time of reading, if not already done so, how long will it be before the Parking Department put another sign on the out of order pay & display machine? Hopefully, one that is no longer ambiguous, and is also correct.

14. Given the actions of the Parking Department, the ambiguous sign and notice, will the Parking Department now cancel ALL outstanding PCNs and refund ALL monies to those motorists who were unlawfully issued with a PCN as a result of being misled by the ambiguous sign and notice?

    If yes, please proceed without delay.

    If No, provide the evidence that allows the Council to retain the monies obtained from the illegal,

    underhand and incorrect PCNs that have been issued due to the Councils unlawful actions, total

    negligence, and the ambiguous sign and notice which has caused confusion and are misleading

    to the motorist, whilst the CEO, fully aware of the ambiguities, can pick and choose which sign

    or notice they can use to issue PCNs.

15. To prove that no unreasonable, unnecessary or unlawful enforcement took place.

16. Provide evidence to explain why a PCN can be issued for failing to display the correct authority to park, when the correct authority to park, was/is displayed.

17. Finally. Explain why it is acceptable for any Council employee to not only commit a criminal offense by removing a PCN, thereby causing a motorist to receive a demand for money for an offense they knew nothing about, to be allowed to lie to their superior and then be given another chance to admit their error, and still keep their job?

There are no excuses that the Parking Department cannot comment on the actions of an individual employee. The question, ‘why it is acceptable for any employee…, refers to ‘any employee, not an individual’. This a serious question as the actions were committed in front of multiple witnesses and the public has a right to know why such a criminal action, and the result, has been allowed to occur.

Questions End.

The response from the Parking Department, without changing a word…

Dear (name removed)

Thank you for this, Yes I agree the P&D machines are one of my nightmares, to go along with ULEZ and MTC Cameras,

Please see the info I have received from Parking Enforcement.

I can advise that the Pay & Display machines are checked regularly by car park officers.  Where a fault is identified they will endeavour to repair the machine while on site, however, if they are unable to at that time, the machine will be covered over and an Order raised with the manufacturers for their inspection and repair.  Where there is no other alternative working machine at that location, a free parking sign will be displayed on the machine, permitting free parking for a maximum stay period of 3 hours, in accordance with the nearby time plate.

All Civil Enforcement Officers, when enforcing at Pay & Display locations, are instructed to check that the machine(s) are operable before issuing a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN).  If there are no working machines within that location then they are not to issue a PCN for the non-purchase of a pay & display ticket.  Penalties can and will be issued where a vehicle is observed to have parked beyond the 3 hour maximum stay period, or where the wheels of the vehicle are not fully within the bay markings.

We are in the process of purchasing new P&D machines, which should have been done in the previous administration, but for some reason, they would not sign this off.

I would encourage all residents who receive a PCN and they feel it has been issued incorrectly to challenge this, as I know an Elm Park resident (name removed) has informed drivers to do this, and the PCN was canceled.

Best regards  (name removed)

End of Reply.

And that folks proves the utter contempt this Council’s Parking Department has for motorists. Even more so when both the Parking Department and parking attendants KNOWINGLY, UNLAWFULLY and contrary to the London Councils CoPoCPE, TMOs and TSRaGD 2002, continue to issue illegal, underhand and incorrect PCNs at the same location. It also confirms EXACTLY HOW MUCH this administration is prepared to go to put a stop to it! NONE!!!! There’s too much unlawful money to be made. And it also confirms that the Parking Department and the people in it, from the TOP to the BOTTOM, are the lowest of the low. So low in fact that if they were to limbo under the belly of a snake, they would still have room to stand on their feet.

The Elm Park resident has told quite a few motorists to appeal their wrongly issued PCNs but the Parking Department DOES NOT CANCEL THEM!!!  They did cancel ONE, as mentioned in the reply. The rest have been rejected. SO much for an appeal against a wrongly issued PCN. Even more so when the Notice of Rejection is incorrect too!

As a reply to all the questions, who was the thickhead who wrote that load of tripe? The very first sentence proves the crass stupidity of the pathetic individual. Sentence 3 of the questions above refers to a machine in Elm Park Avenue, not in a b****y car park. This wretched and obnoxious attempt at a reply puts the final nail in the coffin and confirms the gormlessness of everyone in the Parking Department, from the TOP to the BOTTOM. If brains were dynamite, collectively, they wouldn’t have enough to blow someone’s nose. In the first paragraph of the reply, the sentence, ‘if a machine is found to be out of order, it is covered up and a free parking sign is displayed to say parking is free for a maximum stay period of 3 hours in accordance with the nearby time plate’, (pole-mounted sign). At this location the notice DID NOT mention anything about a maximum period of 3 hours. It said the machine was out of order and is temporarily free to park. It has taken three attempts to put a notice on the machine that now says parking is limited to 3 hours.

In the second paragraph of the reply, ‘All Civil Enforcement Officers can issue a PCN for exceeding the 3 hour limit’. NO THEY CANNOT when a notice on the machine clearly states parking is Free and there is no mention of a maximum stay limit. NO PCN can be issued because the misleading and ambiguous information is confusing to the motorist. NO THEY CANNOT when the notice on the machine says ‘no return within 3 hours’ and the time plate says ‘no return within two hours’. NO PCN can be issued because this is further misleading and ambiguous information. The people in this Parking Department couldn’t organise a trip across a pedestrian crossing even if the green man was showing, but they continue to get away with their unlawful actions that no one in any authority is prepared to put a stop to.

Out of order machines were not/are not covered up, as has been and as is totally evident, not only in Elm Park, but others in and around the Borough. The ones in Elm Park were only covered up, (w/c 23/01/2023), once these scandals started to emerge. Even then the idiots couldn’t get it right. Wrong notices were placed on the machines, and as I write, despite the Parking Department having been told of these anomalies, some still are. ANY notice on an out of order machine which does not match the timeplates at the location is ambiguous and misleading. As such, NO PCNs can be issued because it is not the motorists fault, and the parking attendant cannot pick and choose which sign/notice they can use to issue a PCN. If a notice says no return within 3 hours, and the sign says ‘no return with 2 hours’, who’s right? The motorist has a right to return after two hours according to the sign, but the parking attendant will issue an illegal, underhand and incorrect PCN based on the ‘no return within 3 hours’ notice on the machine. WRONG!!!

So what have the Council done about this ‘no return within 2hrs’, ‘no return within 3hrs’ problem? Nothing! If you do return to the same location after two hours as per the timeplate and receive a PCN, check the notice on the machine. If it says ‘no return within 3 hours’, the PCN is wrong. Take a picture of the notice on the machine, take a picture of the timeplate and appeal. State that the notice and timeplate are ambiguous and misleading and such the PCN cannot be issued let alone enforced. At the same time ask for all the evidence gathered by the CEO that was used to issue the PCN. They are legally required to note the machine is out of order, as well as any notices on the machine and the timeplate too. If that information is incomplete, the PCN is unenforceable. Also, if you return after 2hrs, as per the timeplate and the notice on the machine states 3 hrs, take a picture of both, then put a notice in your vehicle stating timeplate and notice are misleading and ambiguous. Not only does the CEO have to note the out of order machine, the notice attached and the timeplate, they also need to document your notice in the vehicle as well. Failure to do so and no PCN is enforceable. Regrettably, until someone in authority really does hold these imbeciles to account, you will have to fight. The problem… too many people just give up.

If the Parking Department know they are right, and have been right, to issue illegal, incorrect and underhand PCNs at this location, can some smart a*** explain why, after w/c 23/01/2023, was it necessary for all the out of order P&D machines in Elm Park to be covered up and new notices put on them that now state ‘No return time within 3hrs’? Another ‘NO’ then! This is just an immoral face saving exercise as an attempt by the Parking Department to justify the original PCNs were issued correctly.

The Councillor who wrote the forward to the reply might well be worried about the P&D machines, the ULEZ and the MTC cameras. Motorists don’t mind paying fees to park. They have been doing so for many years. What they don’t like is the way they are being persecuted by this dishonest and holier than thou Parking Department when they are issued PCNs which are illegal, underhand and incorrect, then having their appeals against a wrongly issued PCN, rejected out of hand. If this is allowed to continue, the Councillor’s biggest worry isn’t going to be the P&D machines, the ULEZ or the MTC cameras; it’s going to be the large number of motorists who are being maltreated by Havering Councils repugnant Parking Department. Motorists have long memories and object to handing over monies for wrongly issued PCNs which are not rightly cancelled when appealed.

Finally, we come to the last part of the last sentence in the Council’s reply, ‘…or where the wheels of the vehicle are not fully within the bay markings.’

As I stated in Part 1….  “Equally, it must be pointed out, a motorist can receive a PCN for not being parked wholly within a marked parking bay…    …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!”

And so it comes to pass. At the same location in Elm Park Avenue, the universally abhorrent, disgraceful, and totally unlawful actions of this Council’ Parking Department continues without remorse or redress. The CEOs are also issuing PCNs for not being parked wholly within a parking bay. REALLY! WHAT BAYS are they referring too? The images used in the header of this article clearly show what sort of lines are visible to the motorist, if they are lucky enough to see them when parking. They are COMPLETELY illegible, incorrect and incomplete. Not according to the CEOs. They believe the portion of what part of a line they can see is enough for them to issue an illegal, underhand and incorrect PCN.

The image above, taken from the CEH V2a, is what CEOs must use when issuing PCNs for not being parked wholly in a marked bay. This is proof beyond all doubt that a PCN issued at this location is illegal, underhand and incorrect. It is also proof beyond all doubt that the Parking Department are complicit in these actions and will not cancel a wrongly issued PCN even when challenged.

The images above are also exactly the same as those given in the TSRaGD 2002, Schedule 6, page 184. The lines denote exactly how a parking bay must be marked and be clearly visible before a PCN can be issued. Not in the case of this Council’s Parking Department. And this administration is continuing to let them get away with it.

If you get a PCN for not being parked wholly in a bay and the lines are incomplete, incorrect or missing, take pictures of what lines there are and appeal. State that the lines are not compliant with those shown in the TSRaGD 2002, Schedule 6, page 184, nor the CEH V2a, Section 2 – Definitions, and ask for all the evidence that the CEO is required to make before issuing the PCN, together with a copy of the checks that MUST be properly carried out by the Parking Department before the appeal can be rejected.

When in a discussion with a parking attendant I asked them if they carried a copy of the CEH V2a to assist them in their decision making before issuing a PCN. Answer, ‘No, I know what I am doing’. When asked if the parking bay lines were compliant with the TSRaGD 2002 and CEH V2a, they replied, ‘No’. When asked why they were issuing unlawful PCNs for not being wholly within a ‘marked’ bay when the lines are not compliant, the answer was, ‘I can exercise my discretion and can decide if I want to issue a PCN or not’. When told that that was unlawful, they were still adamant that they could exercise their discretion. He didn’t laugh when I asked him what would happen if I exercised my discretion to run over a pedestrian because they were to slow to clear the crossing. He said that I would probably go to jail as that would be unlawful. “Quite rightly so.”, I said, “Just as unlawful as your actions are in issuing an incorrect PCN”. And, I must point out quite clearly, the words I used were purely an example to demonstrate an unlawful action and I DO NOT condone such actions in any way. Of course I would go to jail for committing a criminal act, but the CEO cowboys, (apologies to the word cowboys), believe they can, and do, get away with it.

These ongoing immoral, vile, obnoxious and thoroughly unlawful actions that are allowed to continue by this new administration, is not the good start they needed to get off too. Motorists are already complaining about the b****y dishonourable and corrupt Havering Council Parking Department. PLEASE, don’t let it spoil the hard-won victory. Put a stop to it now before it’s too late.

Last, but by no means least, and, believe it or not; I have already had a miniature replica Pay & Display machine given to me. Will the final number be more than those of the miniature replica Smart Car? Time will tell

Part 5 to follow shortly.

For a more detailed approach to appealing illegal, underhand and incorrect PCNs, see…

Mr Mustard –    https://lbbspending.blogspot.com/

https://thehaveringdaily.co.uk/2023/03/14/havering-council-parking-ticket-scandal-part-1/

https://thehaveringdaily.co.uk/2023/03/15/havering-councils-parking-ticket-scandal-part-2/

https://thehaveringdaily.co.uk/2023/03/16/havering-councils-parking-ticket-scandal-part-3/

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!

---

We have created community pages where we will share our up-to-date stories happening in the area. Add the area closest to where you live.