Newham Council Above the Law

#1
Issued a rake of penalty charge notices from camera's found to be out of certification and therefore statutory approval.

BBC News - Newham Council issued illegal parking fines after camera error

Parking tickets were illegally issued by a dozen cameras over at least two years, a London council has admitted - but it refuses to refund fined drivers.
Local authorities are only allowed to use cameras authorised by the Vehicle Certification Agency (VCA)
When the problem came to light in February 2013, it commissioned accountancy firm PricewaterhouseCoopers to carry out an audit of how many unlawful tickets it had issued.
BBC London has now obtained a final copy of that report, which covers tickets issued in the years 2011-2012 and 2012-2013.


It reads: "Compliance is high (97%); however, due to the volume of parking penalty charge notices issued even a small percentage of non-compliance will have a significant impact on the council's finances.
Council is refusing to refund drivers who fessed up and paid the penalty off a straight bat.

Tosspots (the W word gets captured by the swear filter).

Proof positive yet again that traffic enforcement for councils is about raising funds not clearer or safer through ways.
 
#3
Traffic enforcement everywhere is about revenue generation.


Nail hits head…





Speed camera Italy - painted dayglo orange, and there are multiple large and clear signs leading up to it, including a flashing 'your speed is 'x' kmh' matrix board. The intention is to slow you down, not fine you.




Of course, it's hidden and painted green so you will see it and slow down…
 
#4
Im not sure whether its because I take more interest as I get older or whether the authorities really are getting more corrupt ?, from parish councils up to No 10 ,Cnuts , all of them.
 

jarrod248

LE
Gallery Guru
#5
Those green cameras look like the ones in Manchester as you get to the end of the Woodhead pass, hidden behind trees and bus shelters and all painted green.
 
#7
Call me old fashioned but perhaps if you weren't speeding, you wouldn't get caught?
 
T

Tremaine

Guest
#9
Lovely , a chance to have a dig at Councils. So anyway, as an old ugly daft girlfriend who happened to be fat, and worked in Plymouth council said to me ; "better to be on the inside p***ing out". True dit. They really do hate their public, they really do smell of wee, and grow a very hard skin if they're in the office in office being an officious officer for the official period, officially. God knows how they get that way. Perhaps they're taken in to a room to be hypnotised by Paul McKenna, because certainly something dreadful happens to them when they become a council employee. Tweed knickers, microchips in the head, maybe. Don't marry one, sex is like wrestling with a crocodile and they're just as deadly. And Yes they're just the same at home, they're never off duty, and if you expect them to pay for anything you'd have to get Tony Robinson to find their fcukin purse.

Anyway where was I, Councils (read Authorities) have been handed more powers over the years, they know their powers and mandate, and they know they're practically untouchable. They've been abusing acts of Parliament and all sorts of powers, for years, so why would they hand back any cash they've allegedly swindled out of the public. No government has ever been able to control those bastards. Fines are revenue for councils, and they won't be handing that much cash back unless they're forced, at gunpoint probably. This is why we need constant lobbying for social policy change, and tactical voting at election time to hoof the buggers out in the street. Get involved in lobbying for social change, and use your vote, as well as your local CAB to pressure the council. Councils officially listen to their customers while unofficially ignoring them with contempt. Incidentally there's also the Local Government Ombudsman at Local Government Ombudsman • Home Wibble
 
#10
Most traffic Enforment Departments of local councils are run by little Hitlers who beleive themselves to be above the law. This is just another method of stealing cash for local citizens. They are like accident compensation lawyers, double glazing salemen, Human Rights law firms - and of coruse politicians. All are lying thieving Manneken Pissoirs......
 

Attachments

#11
Council employees also have a nasty habit of phoning your employers direct after you threaten to knock one of them out during a project management meeting.
 
#13
I'm sure they'll be happy to point out, paying the penalty is an admission that you committed the offence.
Under threat of a Section 172 request.

How can it be an offence anyway?

The kit which decides if the speed was excessive or not as the case may be was not certified.

It would pretty much be the same as plod using a hairdryer to measure your speed, making a best guess then bunging the S172 request in the post.

It is because of the Section 172 request and the requirement for persons to self incriminate that all these certification standards were introduced.

Offence, evidence and punishment all done through the post without redress to a court.

It is also important to understand the significance of the intimidating factors behind the S172.

Fill this form in and tell us who was driving or else we will nick you for something else.

Say for example a person used a defence of I am not filling this form out as I believe the camera was not certified.

This persons would still be brought before the courts be convicted get a fine and penalty points irrespective even if afterwards they found the camera to be illegal as they are committing a separate offence.

Fecking Stinks the lot of it..

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

What happens if I ignore the S172 document or I am unable to identify the driver?Failure to supply the details of the driver may render you liable for prosecution under Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. This carries a maximum fine of £1,000 and six penalty points, which through totting up could also result in disqualification. As the keeper of the vehicle the courts will require you to demonstrate “due diligence” as to why you could not identify the driver. If required we can provide images of the alleged offence, which may or may not assist you to recall the incident or identify the driver.
Are my human rights infringed if I sign and/or respond to this notice?The Section 172 form provided with the Notice of Intended Prosecution is a self serving statement, as such it must be signed by the person providing the information, either in the format provided or similar written format. An unsigned admission or nomination is deemed to be a failure to provide the information, and will be treated as such. Cases brought before the European Court of Human Rights have concluded that the information provided does not infringe Human Rights legislation (incrimination of self or others) Also, a caution is not required under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 prior to returning the information requested.Due to the legal time restraints, we reserve the right not to issue a COFP (or a Driver Awareness Course offer) but instead refer the case directly to court. Therefore it is important for you to deal with matters expeditiously to allow the driver the maximum time available to consider all options available to them.
 
#14
"When the problem came to light in February 2013, it commissioned accountancy firm PricewaterhouseCoopers to carry out an audit of how many unlawful tickets it had issued.
It reads: "Compliance is high (97%); however, due to the volume of parking penalty charge notices issued even a small percentage of non-compliance will have a significant impact on the council's finances."



I don't know overmuch about accountants except that they can be quite expensive.
I do know that PWC is one of the "Big 4" companies of accountants and thus their rates will not be cheap.
It would be of interest (to me) to know how much of an "impact on council finances" this piece of research was, as compared to the money saved. (That's assuming they get away with not repaying).
 
#15
Council enforcement cameras are a pain in the arse. They even automatically ticket marked plod cars on calls that go offside a bollard or turn through a no - left/right turn.

the forms to get the ticket cancelled (by finding out what call you were going to) takes about 30-40 mins to deal with. Id rather be out there working for the tax paying public than trying to satisfy council bureaucrats and avoid having to pay their tickets for actions carried out on duty.

I do however, draw fantastic almost orgasmic satisfaction from giving no-seatbelt tickets to their smart car driving camera operators
 
#16
Council employees also have a nasty habit of phoning your employers direct after you threaten to knock one of them out during a project management meeting.
My employer would want to know why he was in a fit state to complain!!
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top