Saturday 29 September 2007

Wheelchair access Parking Appeals Venue

Hi Folks
I sent this today to the CEO Bolton Council. I do not think he will be a happy bunny especially when he sees who else iv'e sent it too.

Barry Moss


Dear Mr Harriss,
The Holiday Inn in Bolton is the venue for parking appeals and it does not have wheelchair access for the disabled.

I attended the venue today to hear appeals and I watched a disabled appellant helped by her husband struggle up the three steps to the adjudication room on the ground floor, also it is a route march from the underground car park and uphill all the way and the closest fire escape to the appeal room about 6 metres away involves going down to the basement via two flights of steps.

This building as got to be the worst wheelchair friendly building in the Borough and whoever chose this venue has not taken the disabled into account.

I urge you to take this venue off the list and find another venue which complies with the relevant laws for wheelchair users, a lot of penalty charge notices are issued to disabled drivers and they must be given easier access options than there are at present to attend an appeal without having to struggle to get to the appeal room.

This email has been copied separately to The Bolton News, Disability Rights Commission, Ruth Kelly MP, Neil Herron, NPAS. Jim Keiller.

Friday 28 September 2007

Today in the Bolton News

Fight parking fines
A Readers' Letter
A disabled friend was issued with a parking ticket in Queen Street, Bolton, recently, for parking over the front marking in a disabled bay. My friend could only just fit the car into the bay.

I contacted campaigner Barry Moss, who has appeared in The Bolton News and who provided helpful advice.

My friend appealed and the ticket was withdrawn.

I would urge anyone who feels they have been unjustly issued with a parking ticket to contact Barry.

Do not let the dictators of Bolton Council stuff their coffers with fines.

Peter Seddon, Grove Street, Kearsley

Well done Peter and give my regards to Jannette, I'm glad the advice produced a result, I had no doubt it wouldn't, but with Bolton Councils unlawful parking regime you never know what comes next, but we remain ready for them.

Today in Bolton
Went to the adjudication appeals today at the Holiday Inn in Bolton, the adjudicator was Mr Stephen Knapp who I find to be a fair and knowledgeable adjudicator and apart from a couple I missed and a couple of appellants who didn't turn up and a couple of adjournments it was 100% wins for the other 8, it was a very good day for justice and a bad day for Bolton Council's lawless regime, crime should not be seen to pay, But in Bolton Councils case Crime pays very handsomely indeed.

Barry

Bolton Council Reneges on DPE application (Nothing new there then)

SENT TO THE CEO BOLTON COUNCIL TODAY
Dear Mr Harris'
I have obtained under the FOIA over 600 pages from the DfT regarding Bolton's Councils application for Decriminalised Parking Enforcement from 1999, within the first few pages I found the following:
From Traffic Management & Tolls Division 1
ROAD TRAFFIC ACT 1991: (PERMITTED PARKING AREA AND SPECIAL PARKING AREA) METROPOLITAN BOROUGH OF BOLTON ORDER 2000
Review of Existing parking regulations.
Annex B
Review of existing parking regulation:
2. Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council has undertaken a review of it's existing Traffic Regulation Orders (TRO's) and has confirmed all orders will be revised by the commencement date of August 2000. The Council also proposes to ensure that all parking restrictions will be signed in accordance with the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions.

After checking the signs regarding bays against the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions I can confirm that no such undertaking has been carried out by Bolton Council and the signs are still illegal after DPE commenced in late 2000, 7 years.I have been in touch with the DfT and awaiting information from Mr John Mann Traffic Signs DfT who is interested in why the signs have still not been made legal, which was a requirement for allowing DPE by the DfT in 2000, for 7 years the council have derived unlawful income from thousands of motorists parked in illegal bays.
When are the Council going to issue restitution to all the motorists who have paid out their hard earned income for penalty charges issued on illegal bays that do not conform to statute, especially Ms Joanne Mills who had to pay £384 to the Bailiff because her partner thought the bay he parked in was a Disabled Permit Bay and thought it were also legal. The Illegal bay was the MAYORS BAY.
This email will also be copied to the Bolton News and Ms Joanne Mills
Yours sincerely
Barry Moss

Tuesday 25 September 2007

Illegal bays in Church Bank

Spent 6 hours in Bolton on Sat 15th photographing and taking notes of Bolton's back street illegal parking bays, have a look at these pics in church bank, the council are enforcing these none existent bays and when I inform them to suspend enforcement they say there is the existence of a Traffic Order, there may well be a Traffic Order in existence but the bay certainly doesn't exist for the TRO to back it up which makes the TRO as not in use. and this is after the Parking Attendant has informed the council that the bays need relining. I will send these pics to Bolton Parking services and see what wry comments they come back with.

Friday 14 September 2007

Parking out of Bay

Bolton Council have indicated that after consulting a legal expert (Barrister) they are to put the CONDITIONS OF USE Signs right at the car parks, there are about 30-35 of them in Bolton the word "wholly" is missing from the signs. I told them on June 11th after receiving the Pilkington v Bolton Council adjudication from the National Parking adjudication Service, The signs were non compliant but it has cost the Bolton Taxpayer 100's of ££££'s for a legal expert to tell the Council what I told them in June for free.
The work will be done over the next 21 days, needless to say a request will be following under the FOIA asking how much the Barrister cost the taxpayer of Bolton, followed by a request to find out how much the the sign modifications cost.
When I receive an electronic version of the letter I will post the full climbdown on here it makes satisfying reading.

Boltons Non compliant bays Part 2

I forgot to mention the 1028.3 bay which Mrs Bohan referred to in her letter below, here is the reply.

Dear Ms Bohan,
Sincere apologies I neglected to reply to your comment in second paragraph , it states: would also add that Item 4 of your picture shows it is permitted to omit the word "disabled" from road marking 1028.3.
You are not wrong, however if you are going to omit the word disabled it must be replaced with 1 of 3 other permitted variants, otherwise what will the bay become, it can't be any other bay other than with the permitted variants of:
1. Buses
2. Large or slow vehicles only
3. Loading only
4. Disabled

The Permitted Variants box of a 1028.3 bay states:

Disabled may be omitted or varied to: (see 1 to 3 above)

No wording at the bay makes the bay non compliant with the TSRGD the bay you are using in Howell Croft North is a 1028.3 bay without the wording but it is currently being used as a 1032 bay because you are illegally charging motorists to park in a bay that does not exist in law, therefore you are deriving income from a non compliant bay, the proof you are doing this is the plate showing where the P&D machine is and of course the machine itself.

Regards

Barry Moss

Bolton's Non Compliant Bays

Below is a letter received today from Mr Sean Harriss' office regardin my letter to him recently, my reply is below this letter.

From: Bohan Joan (nee homewood) [mailto:joan.bohan@bolton.gov.uk] On Behalf Of Harriss SeanSent: 14 September 2007 16:42To: bmoss@ntlworld.comSubject:

Dear Mr Moss Thank you for your email which I have now discussed with my colleagues. I agree that it appears that some such bays may have been marked in error, with the ends of bays either marked with one transverse line instead of two or two instead of one, or with individual spaces within a bay marked with two transverse lines instead of one.
I would also add that Item 4 of your picture shows it is permitted to omit the word "disabled" from road marking 1028.3.
I would have thought that an appeal on such grounds would not succeed under the “de minimis non curat lex” principal, providing that the signage was correct, that it was conveyed to the driver the uses for which the bay was intended and that its length and location conformed to that provided for in the Traffic Regulation Order.
I would add that as part of any ongoing future maintenance programmes we will rectify the above marking errors. Finally, I am concerned at the inappropriate language you used about staff in this and other correspondence and I would ask that you desist in future so that we can conduct our business in a professional manner.

MY REPLY

Dear Ms Bohan Joan.
Please read this email to Mr Harriss and ask him to reply PERSONALLY.
If you could point out the inappropriate language I will try very hard to refrain from using it in the future, but if you are referring to Waffler this was used instead of calling someone a liar which to me is a more offending term. The term waffler is an endearing term used by Blokes, but you wouldn't know that as you appear to be a woman, you should not be concerned about any inappropriate language unless it is addressed to you personally, if waffler was not the inappropriate language you are referring to then please point me to the offending word, if it was Waffler then please confirm. De Minimis the definition of which I believe would be: "too insignificant to be of importance" if the council think the bays would come under de minimis you may as well shut the council down now, de minimis would be used by an adjudicator perhaps if someone was referring to a line as too wide or too narrow by 3 or 4 millimetres or too long or too short by 5 or 6 centimetres, the bay of which you are deriving unlawful income from does not even appear in the statute book 3113 2002 so I would hardly refer to missing lines or too many lines as De Minimis. You can hardly rely on De Minimis if the bay doesn't exist at all.I hardly think any adjudicator with an ounce of intelligence would even mention the term de minimis never mind rely on it to decide an appeal on it, especially after s/he sees a picture of the bays.On Saturday 14th I am going into Bolton again to document and photograph the remainder of the non compliant bays in Bolton I will then email you my findings. I will park in a bay in le-mans crescent to pick up a Penalty Charge Notice the Contravention will be Number 83 if the PA gives me a PCN he will be breaking the law on behalf of the council (Malfeasance) I will appeal the PCN it on the bays non compliance with the TSRGD's 2002 and I will cite case law of Davies v Heatley in my defence.See http://sunderlandparkingappeals.blogspot.com/2006/10/davies-v-heatley-lord.html (read to first horizontal line) Also see http://www.swarb.co.uk/lisc/RdTrf19701979.php (8th case down) after this appeal win I will be asking the council for a date to refund the money illegally taken from thousands of unlawful tickets issued in the bays mentioned. If you can show me case law or any appeal that was won by a Council on the De Minimis rule for the types of bays I have documented and photographed and revealed to Bolton Council as being bays currently in use in Bolton, I will give up my campaign against the lawless Bolton Council, throw in the Towel and move to a mud hut in Zimbabwe. Regards Barry Moss P.S May I ask to you to use the reply button rather than start a new email page this is too ensure that the previous information can be tracked. Also could you please refer to the body of the letter by using the subject box, again so it can be tracked, if you are new to emailing perhaps you could ask a colleague to teach you how this is done, or refer to the relevant Windows Tutorial.

Monday 10 September 2007

Letter to Chief Executive Bolton Council to apply restitution of penalty charges taken on invalid bays

Dear Mr Harriss, As I have copied emails to your email address you must have read with some concern that all the parking bays mentioned in and around the town centre are invalid as they do not comply with the TSRGD's. if the traffic sign does not exist the contravention cannot occur, despite the rantings of Mr Tony Kelly in the Highways dept, if none of your highways management staff cannot provide you proof of what I am stating then email me and I will point you to the necessary legislation.Under the FOI act I have requested the number of PCN's issued at these bays and the three permit bays in Victoria Square North(1) and Victoria Square South(2). I now ask you as the Chief Executive of Bolton Council to give me a timeframe for the issue of refunds plus interest to the people who have paid the Penalty Charge payments which were issued unlawfully, keeping this money derived from unlawfully issued Penalty Charge Notices is, may I remind you a criminal offence, as is Malfeasance, you were put on notice by me on 5th September 2007, any Penalty Charge Notices issued since then were issued illegally as far as Malfeasance is concerned because you now know the PCN's are unenforceable. After I receive the FOI regarding the amount issued If necessary I will again approach the Police with more evidence of Malfeasance.
Yours Faithfully
Barry Moss
Campaign Against Bolton Council's Illegal Parking Regime

INVALID PERMIT BAYS (Security & Response)

Dear Mrs Jackson,
I recently checked the two Permit bays in Victoria Square South and I note that these too have been changed ( like the mayors bay) by removing one of the double broken lines at the start and end of the bays, which are used only on a 1032 Bay, whereas a permit bay is a 1028.4 bay.One of the permit only bays was recently removed from Victoria Square North (12th March I Believe)and another permit bay was added at Victoria Square South at the same time time, although I am not sure of this.I am sure you have seen the following paragraph before but for clarity I have copied it here:Traffic signs shall be of the size, colour and type prescribed by regulation and that if a sign, the contravention of which is an offence, is not as so prescribed then no offence is committed if the sign is contravened, even if the sign is clearly recognisable to a reasonable man as a sign of that kind.From Statutory Instrument 1996 No. 2489The Local Authorities' Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996PART III Making an order Regulation 18 States:Traffic signs: 18.—(1) Where an order relating to any road has been made, the order making authority shall take such steps as are necessary to secure—
(a) before the order comes into force, the placing on or near the road of such traffic signs in such positions as the order making authority may consider requisite for securing that adequate information as to the effect of the order is made available to persons using the road;
(b) the maintenance of such signs for so long as the order remains in force; and
(c) in a case where the order revokes, amends or alters the application of a previous order, the removal or replacement of existing traffic signs as the authority considers requisite to avoid confusion to road users by signs being left in the wrong positions. (2) The order making authority shall consult the appropriate Crown authority before carrying out the requirements of sub-paragraphs (a) and (c) of paragraph (1) in relation to a Crown road.In the interests of justice and transparency I would be grateful if you could respond to the following series of questions (please treat as Freedom of Information requests only where necessary, the other matters to be acknowledged and dealt with in the normal manner when dealing with communications from members of the public).
1. What was the prime motive for modifying the two security and response bays (alleged
permit bays) in Victoria Square South.
2. When were they modified
3. Copy of the works order, memo or email or telephonic transcript or any admin document
relating to the bays in 1 above
4. Who initiated the order for removal of the lines
5. How many Penalty Charge Notices have been issued at the alleged permit bays in Victoria
Square South
6. How many of the Penalty charge notices issued in 5 above went to Bailiff stage

Yours Faithfully

Barry Moss

Council admits lines do not accord with the Traffic Regulation Order yet rejects informal representations... Hypocritical or what

Dear Mr Moss

PENALTY CHARGE NOTICE NO: BO608xxxxx

I refer to your letter of the xx xxxx 2007 in respect of the above mentioned penalty charge notice and apologise for my delay in responding, I have been waiting for clarification from the Council’s Highway Management Unit and Legal Services.

I can now confirm that Bolton Council has taken legal advice in relation to the issues raised in your letter of the xx xxxx 2007. In this particular case, whilst the measurements on the highway at Market Street, Westhoughton, between Victoria Street and Marsden Street may not fully accord with the measurements provided within the corresponding Traffic Regulation Order, the position of the vehicle is as such that the driver was found to have committed parking contravention and as a result, a penalty charge notice issued.

In these circumstances, the Council is not willing to cancel the penalty charge notice.

I have now extended the discounted period and will except a payment of £30.00 to Bolton Council quoting the penalty charge notice number for a period of 14 days from receipt of this letter.

Alternatively you may have the Council’s decision re-assessed by the National Parking Adjudication Service; an independent body put in place to regulation all notices issued in accordance with the Road traffic Act 1991. The attached leaflet explains this process and the grounds of appeal, however it should be noted that if the case is dismissed at Adjudication the full amount of £60 will be due.

Please do not hesitate to contact me again if you require any further information.

Yours sincerely

Sheila Jackson
Decriminalised Parking Manager

Friday 7 September 2007

What type of bay is it

This is a reply from Mr Kelly the highways Engineer from Bolton Council, who in my opinion is not suited to be in the job he is doing because he does not appear to have the slightest clue about traffic regulations, which I would have thought was a pre-requisite for his his designated post as Highways Engineer.
You need to read the initial email first further down the page the bay in question is the one in the pic further down the page. My reply just below should be read last.

Mr Kelly
Sorry Tony but you are a waffler. The bay looks nothing like a 1028.4 bay other than it is the same colour, it is a non bay, it is a bay Bolton council have made up themselves.
A 1028.4 Bay should have the wording as either "DOCTOR" or "SOLO MOTOR CYCLES ONLY" or "SOLO M/CYCLES ONLY or "SOLO M/CS ONLY" or "PERMIT HOLDERS ONLY" there is non of this wording on the carriageway. The bay is part 1032 bay and part 1028.4 bay add these together and divide by two is 1030.2 so Bolton Council have made a 1030.2 it may catch on, it appears you have used this hybrid bay in abundance in Bolton town centre also.
If you recall the Permit bay (MAYORS BAY) in Bolton was marked out the same as the School St bay, yet only days after informing you that the Mayors bay was invalid because it did not conform to the TSRGD's, you soon sent a gang of workmen round to the bay to change it by chipping off one of the lines at the start of the bay, so much for being valid, the bay in School St is also invalid therefore the TRO is not in use.
I shall park my car there next week and hope to get a PCN to test it out on appeal, along with other PCN's I have deliberately received in Bolton to test on appeal.
Why on earth you can't hold your hand up and say "Sorry we got it wrong and we will put it right", that’s much better than to let folk think that the council are complete hypocrites, liars and fools, your explanation tells me that Bolton Council are determined to carry on issuing Penalty Charge Notices illegally despite knowing that the bays are unlawful, this certainly is a Malfeasance and Malpractice
The Council will be exposed for what they are doing and they will be forced to pay back the ill gotten gains from illegally issued PCN's.
By the Way the Mayors bay is still not valid.
Regards
B Moss

Mr Moss
It is clear that the bay has been marked in accordance with Diag 1028.4
of the TSRGD. This is one of the correct markings to be used in
association with the sign to diagram 661.1. The marking gives a clear
indication of the existence of a Traffic Regulation Order at this
location.
The additional lines at either end of the bay will not affect the
enforceability of the Traffic Regulation Order.
I trust this satisfies your query.
Regards
A. J. Kelly
Group Engineer (Traffic Management)
Highways and Engineering Development Services



Dear Mrs Jackson and Mr Kelly
Could one of you please let me know what type of bay it is in the
attached
pictures?, as I can't seem to find it in the TSRGD's. If it is to found
elsewhere in statute perhaps you could point me the way.
The bay is in School St Westhoughton, free to park.
Thanking you in anticipation of an early reply
Regards
Barry Moss

Wednesday 5 September 2007

A letter to the Chief Executive Bolton Council

Hi Folks:... below is a letter sent today to Mr Harriss CEO Bolton Council also to Rob Devey and Paul Keaveney of the Bolton News, this should put the cat amongst the pigeons. if anyone out there reading this has received a PCN in these bays put in a claim for restitution and a complaint to the Ombudsman regarding injustice. you can get further help by emailing me.
Pictures From top down are as follows: Back Spring Gardens (Side of Odeon) Barn St (Side of Job Centre) Cheadle Square Echelon Bays (Across from Bus Stn) Howell Street North (Side of Police Stn)
and you can find what they should look like here: http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2002/20023113.htm#11 click on Schedule 6 (road markings) for the full markings or click here for a 1032 bay
138 of 337 - Diagram 1032


If you want to see the full version of this letter with all the pics, email me at illegalfines@ntlworld.com with your email address.

Dear Mr Harriss,
You may as Chief Executive of Bolton council be interested to learn that none of the on street pay and display Parking Bays I have investigated in and around Bolton Town Centre conform to the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 (Statutory Instrument No 3113 2002)
After spending 2 hours on Sunday photographing the bays my findings are below and the proof is listed in the enclosed attachments.
The bay at Howell Croft North (Side of old Police station) (see pic Howell Croft N Side of P-Station2-rs) is actually laid down as a "LOADING BAY" "DISABLED" "LARGE OR SLOW VEHICLES ONLY" "BUSES" (1028.3 bay) yet it is being used as a normal Pay & display parking bay (a 1032 bay) there are no obvious wording on the carriageway to denote that it is a any of the above names, yet the lines themselves indicate that it is.
Barn St2-rs shows 1018.1 traffic signs which are virtually non existent and you would have extreme difficulty winning any appeal if a PCN issued on these lines were appealed against at NPAS.
Attached Pictures of:
1. Back Spring Gardens-rs (should be a 1032 bay)
2. Howell Croft South (Octagon side)-rs (should be a 1032 bay)
3. Le Mans Crescent-rs (should be a 1032 bay)
4. Victoria Square North t/hall side-rs (should be a 1032 bay)
5. Victoria Square South side of wellsprings-rs (should be a 1032 bay)
6. Queen St-rs (should be a 1032 bay)
7. Barn Street1-rs (should be a 1032 bay)
8. Marsden Road-rs (should be a 1032 bay)
9. Howell Croft N Side of P-Station2-rs (should be a 1032 bay) 10. Cheadle Square echelon bays1-rs should be a 1033 bay
11. Cheadle Square echelon bays2-rs should be a 1033 bay
12. 023113bm[1].gif (1032 bay) (Image taken from (TSRGD 2002)
13. 023113bj[1].gif (1028.3 bay) (Image taken from (TSRGD 2002)
14. Barn St2-rs (should be a 1018.1 line)


All the pictures of the bays at 1-8 inclusive have a double broken line at each end of the bay and a row of broken lines and gaps parallel with the kerbline, the actual bay should be as the Pic above see attachment 023113bm[1] known as a 1032 bay. (Wait for pic to load click on pic, sq appears bottom right click on square to increase size.

All the bays I checked and photographed are non compliant, a well worn cliché "Can't get the staff" appears to ring true with Bolton Council, I just wonder where Bolton Council find the staff to organise the laying down of these bays, or are they contracted out, if so who is checking that the contractors have done the works to the regulations, more to the point who has signed off these illegal bays for the contractor to be paid, because it is going to cost a lot of public expense to put them all right, are you issuing the Parking Attendants with a pot of paint and a brush and telling them "Go to it, paint some parking bays so we can squeeze some money out of the gullible motorist".
Your highways staff need re-training in the traffic laws before you let them loose on the streets again
Had the bays been laid down correctly the environmental impact visually would have been much less dramatic, the bays as described in the TSRGD's do not require anything like the amount of the special paint required because there are less lines required, my estimate would be 50% less paint required, not to mention the extra cost to lay them down and more importantly the cost to put them right to make them lawful.
There is a serious injustice caused to the motorist who receive a Penalty Charge Notice in Bolton and as a citizen of Bolton I put the council on notice not to issue any more Penalty Charge Notices until the on street parking bays have been made lawful for the council to issue them and further, to suspend enforcement until said bays have been modified to comply with Statutory Instrument 3113 2002 and relevant Traffic Law.
I also urge the Chief Executive to convene a meeting with the departments concerned to thrash out the whole concept of the Decriminalised Parking Enforcement regime in Bolton, the Council are being illegally enriched by the receipt of unlawful penalty charges and are open to accusations of Malfeasance and Maladministration.
Only when I know that Bolton Council are operating a Lawful, Fair and Just DPE regime will I leave you alone, until such time as this is in place, be assured I will be constantly be in your hair exposing the injustice to the motorists of Bolton.
A further letter will follow, requesting under the FOI act the amount of penalty charges issued on the bays mentioned above, I regret this action as I know a lot of time is taken up finding the information required, I am requesting this information purely in the interests of justice.
I would like Mr Harriss to reply to this rather than any other person, as it is Mr Harriss who is responsible for the sorry mess that is the DPE regime in Bolton, sorry Mr Harriss but the buck stops with you.
May I say in closing that I am totally in favour of parking enforcement in Bolton and any other town, otherwise it would be anarchy on the roads, but may I also say that if you are going to take £60 of a motorist for committing a parking contravention, then you must do it within the relevant law.

Yours Faithfully

Barry Moss

Tuesday 4 September 2007

Claim for £90 Restitution

Put in a County Court claim for restitution for a friend after the Pilkington v Bolton council adjudication, she had paid £90 for a contravention of Parking outside the bay, just heard today that the Council have indicated that they intend to defend the claim, so it's going to be another couple of months before it's heard. I will keep you informed.