BOLTON PARKING ISSUES

GMPS CLAMPERS

2010-03-28T09:56:00.017+01:00

Clampers are the dregs of society, modern day Dick Turpins that prey on unsuspecting motorists and wrest money from them at any opportunity they can get.

Miss X from Bolton got in touch with me for help after her car was clamped in Lottery Row at the back of Wetherspooons Nelson Square Bolton, it was the night of the rally of the two groups, unite against facism and the english defence league, Miss X had tried to park near Nelson Square but the Police moved her on and told her to find a parking place elsewhere, she parked in lottery row and failed to notice that signs for clamping were deployed very high up on the wall in front of where she parked, but when she returned to her car on Sunday the car had been removed, she telephoned the Clampers and spoke to Danny who told her that her car had been towed away to a compound in Wigan, it was actually parked near a scrap yard on Kirkless Industrial Estate Cale Lane, Danny told Miss X that the Bill would be £500 plus £35 per day storage fees.

I phoned Danny and informed him that I would take him to court if Miss X handed any money over, I arranged to meet him at the location in lottery row, I arrived there early and phoned him again we remonstrated over the phone, at one point he told me that he was on another phone talking to a solicitor, the solicitor turned out to be his mummy, who must have set up Danny and taught him how to screw money out of motorists, but then thats what solicitors do best, Danny clamper refused to meet me, Mummy's knowledge of litigation appears to be somewhat limited, most solicitors have some basic knowledge of litigation but she appears to know nothing, Danny is also a Bouncer and the folk I spoke to around where he clamps say they don't like him.

Miss X phoned me again and informed me that Mummy's boy Danny clamper had said that he would remove the clamps for the initial clamping fee of £150 which she didn't agree with. £150 to clamp and £250 are excessive and this sum is deemed as a punishment, only the state have the legal authority to punish anyone in this country, I informed Miss X that if she had to pay the £150 then do it and I will still take him to court, no judge worth his salt will allow anyone to have to pay £150 for a parking contravention. especially by an emotive subject of clamping.
On Friday Miss X phoned me and told me that Mummy's boy Danny said that he would release the clamp for free provided that she signed a waiver not to take him to court, we arrived at the location at 1815 hrs, Miss X's mum had already been to the location to recce the area during the day, so she knew where the car was parked, but Clamper Danny didn't know this, Danny clamper was already there, he produced a piece of paper with notes on it stating that the clamp would be removed only if Miss X signed the waiver, Bully boy Danny clamper had told me that his Solicitor mummy had made out the letter, not well up on the law then is she, she should have known that one cannot sign away your rights under duress in this country and it is Blackmail to ask anyone to sign something under duress, the definition is as follows:
The exertion of pressure or threats, especially unfairly, in an attempt to influence someone's actions. and To attempt to influence the actions of (a person) by unfair pressure or threats.

I phoned the police but theyt said it was a civil action, they are wrong.

The clamp was eventually removed only to find that the car wouldn't move because the handbrake was stuck on, Danny clamper had to find a mechanic to free off the brakes so it could be driven. Danny clamper was given the invoice before we left.

Danny clamper had no lawful right to move the vehicle from lottery row, he did it to free up the space so another fly could get caught in his expensive trap, there are three criteria that a car can be removed lawfully, these are:

1. Dangerously parked

2. Causing an obstruction

3. Blocking an emergency exit

The car was not causing any of these three criteria, so why was it towed away? was it to make room for another sucker, I believe it was, if it did not meet the criteria and Danny Clamper removed the car then it is theft. Miss X was deprived of her car for six days because of Danny Clamper's unlawful actions, Danny Clamper told Miss X that had it been an older car the charges wouldn't have been as high, this is surely unlawfull, at the time of writing this I have just come off the phone speaking to Danny Clamper who said I must stop harrassing him because earlier I had phoned him to ask him for his SIA number which he has refused to supply me with, he had already given me the number but when I entered it onto the SIA website it was refused, I believe he gave me the wrong number on purpose, Danny clamper put the phone down on me so I phoned again this time his mummy answered, she is supposed to be a solicitor and by the way she spoke to me I do not believe she is a solicitor, she was extremely rude and wouldn't allow me to get a word in edgeways, she said she was recording the call, I will put in a subject access request to get a copy, she repeated that she would report me for harrassment, I have now reported the incident of the clamping to the Independent Police Authority, who will now investigate why the Police took no action when I phoned them on Friday last regarding Danny Clamper forcing Miss X to sign a waiver under Duress.

Danny Clamper charges £35 a day for storage for keeping the vehicle on Kirkless Industrial Estate, clamped vehicles are not even kept in a secure compound.

Tree with a preservation order saves £60 parking fine...(click on pics to enlarge them)

2008-08-16T01:03:00.011+01:00

After a TV programme I appeared in some months ago on North West Tonight regarding parking in Bolton a Mrs Halpin from Sefton Borough saw it and got in touch with me, she told me she was taking her disabled child to the doctors but there was no parking spaces on the surgery car park (sounds familiar) she parked outside on Double yellows and took her son into the Doctors, she made sure he was safe and returned to the car to move it, but a Parking Attendant was already issuing a Parking Ticket, Mrs Halpin explained to the parking attendant what she had done, but he just said you can stay there for 24 hours now, you can only get one ticket every 24 hours. Mrs Halpin sent informal mitigating representations to Sefton Parking Services but her pleas for mitigation were turned down by Mrs S. Lynn from parking services informing Mrs Halpin that the PCN was issued correctly and Pay up or appeal.
I asked Mrs Halpin for pictures of the area where she got the ticket and found that the kerb tab on the double yellow lines (no loading between certain times) was badly faded, but more significant was the upright signplate which though carrying the correct diagram for the restriction was covered by foliage, it is not a motorists job to hunt around for sign plates showing the restrictions and certainly not her job to move foliage about to read the sign, the council sneakily sent Mrs Halpin pics of part of the yellow kerb tabs which were in good repair and the picture of the sign plate (above) however it transpires that the Tree had a preservation order on it and presumably that was why it was overgrowing the sign, but how many parking Tickets were issued where this sign is, not to mention the lies on the letter from Mrs E. Morriss stating that she was cancelling the ticket on the original representations from Mrs Halpin, sorry but it is Hogwash had Mrs Halpin not asked for my help, Sefton Council would have taken £70 off Mrs Halpin without batting an eyelid, so I accuse Sefton parking services of lying to Mrs Halipin regarding her initial appeal to the Council, Why did the Council not cancel the ticket after Mrs Halpin wrote to them with advice from me what to put, its because they were caught with their hands in the till, Sefton Council join the ever increasing list of lying corrupt councils who are interested in only screwing what they can from vulnerable folk.
Mrs S. Lynn should now do the honourable thing and resign along with Mrs Morriss, the public want only public servants who do the right thing first time, not after they have been caught out.

MALFEASANCE IN PUBLIC OFFICE

2008-08-10T00:54:00.005+01:00

The offence of misconduct in public office, which has been defined as:-

"Where a public officer is guilty of misbehaviour in office by neglecting a duty imposed upon him either at common law or by statute, he commits a misdemeanour and is liable to indictment unless another remedy is substituted by statute. The liability exists whether he is a common law or a statutory officer; and a person holding an office of important trust and of consequence to the public, under letters patent or derivatively from such authority, is liable to indictment for not faithfully discharging the office."

SEE POST BELOW

Alan Eastwood Legal Services Director, Bolton Council.

2008-08-09T11:02:00.014+01:00

Alan Eastwood (left) Director of Legal Services and Sean Harriss (right) Chief executive of Bolton Council. Mr Alan Eastwood is the main Protagonist in denying anyone with a claim for restitution of a Penalty charge paid since September 2000 up to and including August 2nd 2006, all of Bolton Councils parking tickets were illegal between those dates.

Printed here is a recent Freedom of Information request from a friend to Bolton Council on these illegal parking tickets.

Request for information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000

In response to your request for information received at this office on 10 December 2007, Bolton Council is happy to supply the following information. I regret that we were not able to provide this information within the statutory deadline which was 10 January 2008; thank you for your patience in this matter.

You requested the following:

003.1 a The Number of Penalty Charge Notices issued between: the 3rd August 2006 and the 22nd August 2006 inclusive.

Answer: 2182 parking tickets.

003.1 b The number paid and their total value

Answer: 1,342 totalling £41,170

003.1 c The number that went to Bailiff stage

Answer: 0 PCN’s went to Bailiff stage.

What happened to the other 840 parking tickets valued at £25,762

Bolton Council knew those 2182 parking tickets to be illegally issued as a result of a high court ruling which every council operating Decriminalised Parking Enforcement were awaiting the outcome of, this case law now known as Barnet v Moses deemed that all parking tickets with only one date were non compliant, Bolton Council are Corrupt and are made corrupt by a very small minority of the people who run the the council, Bolton Council Legal Dept knew the tickets were not compliant yet fraudulently obtained £41,170 in 20 days from illegally issued Parking Tickets. Mr Alan Eastwood and Mr Sean Harriss the Chief Executive are refusing to give that money back to the people they took it off despite the fact that it was illegally derived income, this is known as unjust enrichment and the council must pay it back now.
Now you can see just who are the culprits for not giving back more than £6.5 million every penny of this taken illegally since September 2006, to 22nd August 2006.

If you paid for a parking fine between September 2006, to 22nd August 2006 then you are legally entitled to your money back.

The following is from Bolton Councils website:

Legal and Democratic Services:
Welcome from the Director:
Welcome to the Legal and Democratic Services Department of Bolton Council.
The Department's role is to enable the whole Council to fulfil its corporate and democratic responsibilities towards serving the Community.

Legal and Democratic Services includes the following services:-

Democratic Services - plays a major role in the cycle of meetings, the compiling and distributing of agendas for meetings of the Council, Panels, Committees and various other meetings ;
Elections - deals with the Electoral Register and both Local, Parliamentary and European Elections;
Registrars of Births, Deaths and Marriages - plays a vital part in peoples ' lives;
Services to elected members;
Legal - discharges the Council's legal obligations
Communications and Marketing Agency - provides effective public relations, communications and consultation service together with the marketing of Bolton nationally and internationally

Bolton council cave in on Pilkington v Bolton Council review

2008-08-09T10:50:00.002+01:00

Bolton Council have done a U turn on the Pilkington v Bolton Council review which they lost in March, after speaking to the Traffic Penalty Tribunal (Formally NPAS)I asked yesterday why was there a delay with this review, I was informed by their appeals Coordinator that Bolton Council were no longer contesting the review, the coordinator was surprised that neither Mr Pilkington or myself had been informed of the decision, she said that the Council should have informed us both of their decision a month ago, sheer incompetence and complaceny from both the Council and the TPT, so nothing new there then, both the Council and the TPT are supposed to inform the appellant and anyone acting on their behalf of these decisions, I have asked legal services for confirmation of this U-Turn but at the time of writing nothing has been received. No reason was given for the climb down.

Bolton Council apply for a review of the David Pilkington -v- Bolton Council appeal

2008-05-09T13:54:00.004+01:00

Bolton Council have applied for a review of the David Pilkington -v- Bolton Council appeal which was heard in March (see below).
They have gone bleating to Mr John Hunter Barrister from Kings Chambers in Manchester who has been dusted down and brought out of the cupboard yet again By Alan Eastwood in the Legal dept to waste Bolton taxpayers money, he really does chuck our money around like Confetti, this will be another wasted £1000 to add to the other £2000 already wasted for bringing in Barristers who do not have a clue about the parking Laws, yes Mr Hunter I mean you.

NEW LOADIND BAY, Atherton, Wigan

2008-05-09T13:44:00.002+01:00

United Utilities have been digging up Atherton town centre, Wigan Borough, for over a month , they are now in the throes of completing the reinstatement works of the road, only problem is they got someone to repaint the loading Bay who must have lost his Spellchecker in the trench, either that or they phoned Bolton Council to ask the Highways and Engineering dept how to spell this very difficult word, anyway this is how your money is spent and ultimately wasted.

Another Pilkington v Bolton Council win against unlawful bays in Cheadle Square, Bolton.

2008-03-28T01:44:00.012Z

The full Adjudication decision is now out for this appeal, Which Bolton Council LOST! unfortunately it is too long to put on here, 14 Pages so if anyone wants a PDF file of the decision please email me at bmoss@ntlworld.com and I will send you a copy

PRIVATE PARKING COMPANIES Judge Quashes £300 parking Fine. and the guy in the picture who owns excel runs the Excel car park for Bolton Council

2008-03-28T00:38:00.009Z

To read the images please click on them.
Fines from Private Parking companies are nothing more than invoices, provided you do not admit to driving the car you will not have to pay anything.

Whilst a Council parking ticket is directed at the owner or registered keeper, a Private Parking Company (PPC) parking ticket is directed at the driver, Whilst I don't advocate telling lies to the PPC by informing them that you were not driving if you were, if you do not admit to driving then they cannot do a thing about trying to get money, whilst they cannot take you to a magistrates court, they can however take you to the county court, you do not have to incriminate yourself by telling the court you were driving even if you were and you do not have to tell the court who was driving if it was not you. As far as I know NO private parking company has ever taken anyone to court for this type of offence.
These PPC's use illegal tactics to scare drivers and most end up paying for fear of the price rising most PPC's are operating a con and should be exposed and made to refund their ill gotten gains.
Ignore all letters other than an initial letter informing them that you will treat any further communications as intimidation and harassment and will inform the Police.

Click on the image to read it larger.
This is from a debt recovery company for an unpaid Parking ticket, now totalling £235 and climbing, as I have advised the recipient not to pay them.

Notice how they use the name of the company they are acting for as PCN (North West limited) the use of PCN is illegal as it is purely intended to make you think it is a council PCN.
Notice how it is from the Pre Court Division in RED to frighten you, then they use the Red Bordered NOTICE OF INTENDED LITIGATION again to scare you into paying, this is intimidation of the highest kind.

Bolton Council are missing a Controlled Parking Zone

2008-02-06T22:49:00.000Z

Monday 4th Feb above picture with sign in place and Wednesday 6th Feb above picture with sign missing

A few weeks ago a lady got in touch for help for a Parking ticket she got in a bay in Dorset St Bolton, the lady took some pics of the signs and it transpires she got the ticket in a Controlled Parking Zone.
I sent a few emails to the council asking for a copy of the CPZ Order, this order legalises the CPZ so the council can enforce the restrictions within the ZONE.
after exchanging a few emails with the Council I got this back the other day:
The Subject line reads:
Controlled Parking Zone, Dorset Street Bolton
Dear Mr Moss
Sorry I missed your call on Friday, I was out most of the afternoon. I’m also likely to be in and out most of today. I think your call may have been in regards to this request. I have spoken to XXXXX XXXXXXX about the order and can confirm that Bolton does not have any ‘controlled parking zones’. I am still awaiting confirmation from Parking Services about enforcement and will let you have the information as soon as I receive it.

All entrances to a CPZ must have a sign to show motorists that they are entering a CPZ and all exits must have a sign that shows motorists that they are leaving a CPZ.
On further investigation I took some pictures on Monday 4th Feb of the Controlled Parking Zone Signs, I then emailed the Pics to the Council informing them that a CPZ does exist and low and behold it was in Bolton, yesterday I sent this email.

Hi Paul
I have been out today taking pics of the Dorset St CPZ please view the attached pics and let me know whether the CPZ order exists, today I visited the CPZ to check on some other things within the CPZ , as I entered Halstead St I noticed the sign showing that I was entering a CPZ had been REMOVED. after a quick drive round I found that all the entrance and exit signs had been removed. when I returned home this email was received from the Council:

Dear Mr Moss
I’ve spoken to Parking about the CPZ in Dorset St. There is no CPZ order for the area and they are currently in the process of removing the signs. Parking are not currently enforcing in the area.

What a Palaver, Bolton Council said they did not have a Controlled Parking Zone and when I pointed it out to them that one actually existed in and around Dorset st they tried to hide it by removing all the CPZ Signage, then they admitted that they did not have a legal order for it and had to cease enforcing it. the area is about half a square kilometre how can they not know it was controlled, each household pays £30 per year so they can park, now if you are a resident in the area the Council called a Controlled Parking Zone Dorset St you can get your money plus interest back for the last six years, which is about how long the Council didn't know they had this CP Zone for, yet continued to take £30 off each household for the priviledge of paying for parking in a free area because the law was not in place to back up the Zone, also if you received a parking ticket in the Zone in the last six years you too can ask for restitution plus interest, email bmoss@ntlworld.com for advice.

Bolton Council's Contract with NCP or is it NCP Services

2008-01-21T18:40:00.001Z

There appears to be something going on with the contract for NCP and Bolton Council when I requested a contract so I could submit a tender on behalf of Mossy Enterprises (parking solutions made easy) I was told that the Council and NCP are renegotiating the contract, it appears that NCP have changed their name to NCP services and it also appears that there is no authority to issue Penalty Charge Notices by NCP services, it also appears that any PCN's issued in the interim could be unlawful i.e invalid, non compliant, void. will keep you posted when I have more info.

More proof against this corrupt council 2 more parking tickets cancelled totalling 4, Sheilas Wheels of Conspiracy, Corruption, Fraud, Deception

2008-01-21T17:57:00.000Z

Bolton Council Corrupt parking regime have cancelled another 2 Penalty Charge Notices, one because because of the delay in dealing with paperwork and the other one because Mrs Jackson says she has lost the paperwork, if you believe her put yer hand up, not many hands up there then, oh yes just the one, oh, its Mrs Jackson, sorry love you can't vote, voting is only for those who believe in justice, put yourself up for a Councillor love they don't believe in justice either.

Well Sean Harriss, CEO of Bolton Council, what sort of a seedy organisation are you running in Bolton, it has got to be the most Corrupt Parking Regime in Britain and getting worse by the day, but if anyone reading this knows a more corrupt Council let me know, and if you can get any logic round the two letters from Mrs Sheila Jackson here let me know. Copies of these are going to the National Parking Adjudication Service so they can see at first hand how Bolton Council are corrupting the Parking Appeals Process. They really are taking the Pizza.

Anyone reading this and whose PCN is more than 4 months since issue should write to Sheila Jackson and ask for the PCN to be cancelled, send a copy of the letters above and below or if you want a copy I can email, request and you shall have. bmoss@ntlworld.com.

THE PROOF THAT BOLTON COUNCIL ARE CORRUPT

2008-01-16T13:49:00.000Z

Please click on the Page to read insert.

Attached is a letter from Parking Services run by an incompetent woman by the name of Sheila Jackson, it is Mrs Jackson who runs a Corrupt Parking regime with the blessing of Councillors and Council Officers, Alan Eastwood, Malcolm Cox and the CEO Sean Harrass who appears to do very little but oversee the running of this Corrupt Council. read the attach letter and see if you can understand the rantings of a totally illogical woman who is running of all things a Parking Services. She has used a decision in an appeal that did not exist and was never ever brought to light to cancel two Parking Tickets both of which were mine, she has corrupted the appeal process by lying on Bolton Council headed notepaper, does she think we are stupid.

Costs Awarded Against BOLTON COUNCIL

2008-01-15T12:58:00.000Z

Please click on the page images to read.

This Corrupt Council that is Bolton has had costs awarded against it by NPAS, this may be a first for costs awarded regarding a no contest plea by any council. Bolton Council gave a no contest plea to an appeal regarding Mr John Burns.
I first got involved with Mr Burns when he phoned me for help as he had received a Parking ticket in a Taxi Bay in Knowsley St Bolton. I checked the bay and confirmed the bay did not comply with the TSRGD's. (nothing new there then in Bolton) Mr Burns had already exchanged several letters with the council who gave the two fingers to him basically saying we want our £60, John came down to my house and we spent a few hours compiling a defence, we had got the info back from NPAS giving the date of the appeal and a copy of Bolton Councils Defence came the week before appeal day. Then with just days to go Mr Burns received a letter from NPAS informing him that Bolton Council had put in a NO CONTEST plea so there was no need to go to appeal, a victory but an Hollow one, it transpires that this Corrupt Bolton council found out I was involved and didn't want to take me on because they knew they would lose the appeal. I phoned NPAS and asked for what reasons did the council enter a No Contest plea, they said the Council gave no reasons, at this news I put the wheels in motion for a review to force the council to the appeal procedure, I knew this could not happen but it laid the foundations for a costs award for not revealing a reason for No Contest plea, I again wrote to NPAS on behalf of John asking for cost and damages for stress and anxiety about £200, but they said they would not allow an award for damages and if a realistic amount was submitted he would look at it. I entered £46 for Johns costs and submitted this and on Saturday John received this enclosed important letter from Mr Stephen Knapp informing him that costs had been awarded against Bolton Council of £46, this is one in the eye for this corrupt council and hopefully others who read this can take heart that Councils cannot take an appeal to the wire then suddenly back out without giving a reason, and expect not to be punished, Thank you Mr Knapp.
If you require a copy of the decision in PDF format please reply to this blog leaving your email address and I will send the PDF to you. or email me at bmoss@ntlworld.com.

Mr K Jalali V Bolton Council

2008-01-10T13:28:00.000Z

This adjudication was heard on 14th December and I had a hard job convincing the adjudicator that the bay in the picture was unlawful, he was the type of guy who just because there is a bit of paint on the Tarmac that looks like it was a bay then it must be a bay, however as the Adjudicator Mr Mark Hinchcliffe did not have a copy of the TSRGD's with him and I had my copy, I was able to prove that the bay did not exist in Law therefore it was unlawful, of which the DfT agreed with. Mr Hichcliffe was a biased ajudicator and made appellants feel that they were on test and not the Council, in a fit of Pique he had a go at the selfish motorist who park illegally, may I remind Mr Hinchcliffe and the Council, it is not illegal to park in an unlawful bay. The pictures are before and after the Council Changed the bay.
The Following day I sent a letter to NPAS complaining that Mr Hinchcliffe was not qualified to continue as an adjudicator as he had made several errors in law and did not have the necessary reference material required for an appeal to be heard justly and fairly.

I can send a PDF copy of the adjudication or read it here.

National Parking Adjudication Service Case No: BO 05375E
Adjudicator’s Decision
Mr Keivan Jalali-Bijari and Bolton Metropolitan Council
Penalty Charge Notice BO61050311 Penalty Charge £60.00
Appeal allowed on the ground that the alleged parking contravention did not occur.
I direct the Council to cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and Notice to Owner.
Reasons:
The PCN was issued on 02 September 2007 at 16:32 to vehicle MT51 KKV in Mawdsley Street
for being parked in a loading place during restricted hours without loading.
In a remarkable email from the Appellant to the Council dated 25/10/07, Mr Jalali-Bijari accepts that he parked in a loading bay – albeit, he says, for only 10 minutes. Nevertheless, he resolved to exercise his right to appeal and, when composing his email, indicated that he would reveal no more details of his grounds of appeal until the hearing. This strategy had, I was told, been successful for other motorists in Bolton. The Council sent a Notice of Rejection.
Mr Jalali-Bijari’s Notice of Appeal, however, raised an issue in advance of the hearing, albeit one
which I find to be without merit. Mr Jalali-Bijari asserted that the PCN failed to comply with
S66(3) of the Road Traffic Act 1991 because, he says, instructions for payment appeared on the
tear-off slip. The papers contain a full copy of the PCN. The instructions for payment are, in fact, on the back of the PCN itself.
At the hearing, the Appellant raised a new point. I considered whether to adjourn the case, but
since Bolton Council had chosen not to attend, and since the point raised seemed to be
unanswerable, I decided not to adjourn.
Mr Jalali-Bijari demonstrated that the markings of the bay on 2/9/07 were inconsistent with the requirements of the Traffic Signs Regulations 2002. Recently, the bay has been re-painted
correctly. I have photographs in the file of ‘before’ and after’.
In my judgment, the potential for confusion is, in this case, miniscule. The bay is clearly a
loading bay, and it is manifestly clear from Mr Jalali’s email that he knew it was a loading bay,
and he was not confused at all by the signage.
However, save for de minimis variations, the design of signs, and marked-out bays on the road,
must comply with the regulations.
I therefore have to ask myself - is the double line at the end of this bay a de minimis variation?
An email dated 5/10/07 from an official in the Dept for Transport to a Mr Moss (in relation to a
different, but similar case) described an identical instance of incorrect marking, where the end of
the bay is wrongly marked with a double white line instead of a single white line, as “an unlawful
hybrid of 1028.4 and 1032 which does not conform to a single diagram in TSRDG 2002”. The
official (john.munns@dft.gsi.gov.uk) will presumably have chosen his words with care, and be
aware of the implications of such a rigid analysis, and the use of the word ‘unlawful’. If a bay
design is ‘unlawful’, it is clearly unenforceable and, consequently, anyone can park there
(without doing any loading or unloading) for as long as they like – which is clearly a recipe for
chaos, and to the great detriment of the people and businesses in the area who need ready
access to a loading bay unencumbered by selfish motorists who park there with no intention of
loading or unloading.
I was shown what appears to be evidence that, in May 07, Mawdsley St was on a list of
highways requiring attention due to lines having sustained “wear + tear”. It has now been repainted correctly. I have also considered the wording of the PCN, the Notice to Owner and the
Notice of Rejection, and have found the wording of all these documents to be unobjectionable. I
therefore find the various additional points raised at the hearing in relation to these matters to be entirely without merit.
Solely because, at the time the PCN was issued, the Loading Bay marking did not strictly
comply with regulations, I have decided to allow the appeal.
Mark Hinchliffe
Parking Adjudicator appointed under Section 73 of the Road Traffic Act 1991
Date: 16 December 2007

James Keiller v Bolton Council October 2007

2008-01-10T12:39:00.000Z

The above was an appeal heard on 26th October 2007, this was an adjudication Mr Keiller could not lose, yet Bolton Council Spent nearly £1000 defending the appeal of which they would have received only £60 had they won, yet it was only the conceited legal dept who thought they could overturn an high court ruling. the Barrister Mr Hunter from Kings Chambers Manchester was given a good rattling by Mr Stephen Knapp the Adjudicator.
Bolton council used a Barrister because they thought if they could convince the Adjudicator that the PCN's they issued were legal because there was only a date of issue on the PCN and no date of Contravention they would be able to hold onto around £6M of income taken unlawfully, but as Bolton council were the only ones who believed that they could win the appeal spent good taxpayers money defending the indefensible. however they are obliged by law to issue restitution plus interest. If you or anyone you know had received a parking ticket before August 22nd 2006 you can now get your money back. phone me on 01942 818687 for more information or email me on bmoss@ntlworld.com for a template letter.

Darley Street Farnworth

2008-01-10T12:29:00.001Z

Yes!!! there are supposed to be double yellow lines running up from the white line at the bottom of the Picture and running under the wheels of the white van on the right of the road joining up with the yellow lines further on. Bolton Council have been informed about this lack of signage and have been asked to cease enforcement until the signing complies with statute. If anyone reading this has been given a ticket in Darley St you should put in for a refund as the TRO is not in use because of the lack of signing. I think I may just go down there next week and invite a Parking Attendent to give me a ticket.

New Knee

2008-01-10T12:18:00.000Z

Sincere apologies for lack of posts on here since having my new knee fitted.
I got a very serious infection and was in Hospital for 10 days over the Xmas period, however after having 67 bags of broad spectrum Antibitocs dripping into me the aggressive treatment brought the infection under control, after isolating the last of the offending bacteria I was discharged on 31st December taking home nearly 600 differet penicillin tablets, I came out with a severe cold, the first cold I have had for many a year, this minor irritant floored me for a further 10 days and I am now just beginning to regain my strength back to what it was pre op.
So it is all systems go against this Corrupt Bolton Council.

New Left Knee

2007-12-02T11:56:00.000Z

BEFORE
AFTER

Well i'm back and together with my brand new Oxinium Left Knee fitted by the pioneer of Oxinium knee replacements in this country Dr John Davidson at the Broadgreen University Hospital Liverpool. Still a bit sore but occasionally I can walk on it, very happy that everthing went without a hitch they even sent me home a day earlier to continue my campaign against the Illegal Bolton Council. This new Knee will come in very handy when I'm measuring the new lines on the new illegal bays in Bolton.

No Blog for a week

2007-11-17T00:05:00.000Z

I am at Liverpool's University Hospital later today 07:30 for a new Knee, if I can get to my PC when I come out I will continue to lobby the Council regarding the unlawful Bays. Incidentally Malcolm Cox's remarks earlier this week in the Bolton News throws up another criminal charge against the Council, that of Conspiracy, definition of Conspiracy "A secret plan or agreement between two or more people to commit an illegal or subversive act"
So we now have. Deception, Fraud and Conspiracy.

Letter sent to CEO Bolton Council and Local Councillors

2007-11-16T23:36:00.000Z

Dear Mr Harriss and Councillors,
In Wednesday's Bolton News the council are reported as stating that only two bays within the Borough were unlawful. As everyone involved in parking issues realises this is incorrect to a degree that cannot be mistaken for a genuine mistake, far from there being only two illegal bays I would put it to you that we will be hard pressed to find two bays that are compliant with the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002. (TSRGD) I have investigated many bays at various locations throughout the Borough and ALL are unlawful and this has been verified by the DfT which unconditionally states the Bays fashioned by the Highways Department and subsequently supported on several occasions by Parking Services, Legal Services and various councillors are illegal Hybrids of a 1032 bay and a 1028.4 bay.
Councillor Peel stated that the council has acted in good faith and the council were updating the Traffic Orders, this statement verifies the bays were unlawful by stating the Traffic Orders were invalid, and Malcolm Cox has now admitted an abuse of office by stating that the Council have known since 2002 that the bays were wrong, despite this knowledge Bolton Council continued to issue unlawful Penalty Charge Notices on Unlawful bays across the Borough, and as a consequence unjustly enriched the council finance department coffers with illegally derived income.
The statement in The Bolton News Wednesday 14th November by Mr Cox is untrue, there were no changes to the design of the bays, just a recommendation that some bays can be narrowed to 1800mm to minimise any obstruction, (See below) there were changes to sign plates but not to bays see information below from Department for Transport, a full script of the changes from 1994 TSRGD to the 2002 TSRGD is attached.

The problem goes back to Sept 2000 when the Council took over Decriminalised Parking Enforcement from the Police, yet after 7 Years the Council have done nothing to change the bays to make them Lawful, the Council were more concerned with deceiving the public by not informing them that the bays did not comply with Statute, enforcement should have been suspended until the bays were made Lawful, The council did none of these and continued to extort money from an unsuspecting public by defrauding them
Mr Harriss and Councillors, are you aware that more than 22,000 Penalty Charge Notices were enforced by Bailiffs since September 2000? The largest payment I have found paid to a Bailiff was £800 paid for parking in what is now admitted was an unlawful bay and the vast majority of these 22,000 Warrants of Execution will have been issued unlawfully and very possibly that number will have to be increased now that you have admitting that the Traffic Orders are not compliant, if the Traffic Regulation Orders do not comply, a parking contravention cannot occur. If the Bay is non compliant the contravention cannot occur.
I now ask the Councillors in the interests of Justice to force the issue of a public meeting regarding the circumstances surrounding parking bays in general and the unlawful application of PCN’s in particular and I will continue to insist for this in the interests of maintaining democratic processes and open-ness in Local Government.
The Council have lost the trust of the Public because of the lies, spin and misinformation that has been issued time and again from more than one department but which has subsequently been shown for the fiction that it is.

The local press and the vast majority of the public are behind my campaign against such deliberate illegality in local government and the Council are quickly losing credibility which it may be already too late to regain and thereby restore the situation to one of trust and reconciliation.
If the Council do not act in a positive and constructive manner soon this issue will get worse before it gets better.
The Council has been well and truly caught appropriating cash illegally, much better to address the situation now by admitting the irregularities rather than at a later date when the situation has been made worse by even more lies and deceit because by that time the public will be left in no doubt as to whether the Council is corrupt or not.

A requirement of regaining that trust must surely be disciplinary action against those responsible because they MUST have acted contrary to Council Policy. There is also a requirement for an honest and determined effort to be made to track down and make full and proper restitution to all those people illegally deprived of money and goods and thereby put right a grave miscarriage of Justice.

Incidentally I have now discovered that all the Bus Stop Bays in the Borough may also be unlawful, the Council were given until 31st December to comply with the New regulations from the TSRGD’s 2002 if Councils did not change the bays by then they should have been removed from the roads, see attached PDF file. The Council have just spent maybe a couple of hundred thousand pounds to resurface and re-sign Deane Road, it appears that the bus stop signing is illegal and the Bus Stop bay should be to Diagram 1025.1 on page 175 of the TSRGD’s 2002, however they can be easily rectified to make them compliant.

The mind boggles at the blundering incompetence of Bolton Council’s Highways and Engineering Department, The Legal Department and the Environmental Services Department, Mr Cox is quoting the 2002 Regulations to excuse the re-signing of the unlawful bays due to cost but he doesn’t use the same regulations to make everything lawful, i.e. Parking Bays, Bus Stop Bays, Signs and Plates etc, he apparently wants it both ways. How many copies of the TSRGD’s do the Council require before someone actually picks one up to read it.

Barry Moss

TSRGD's 1994 amendments 2002 TSRGD's
For disabled badge holder parking spaces (diagram 1028.3) may be reduced to a width of 1800mm where, on account of the nature of the traffic using the road, the width of the carriageway is insufficient to accommodate a wider bay.

20. Parking bays for buses are now prescribed as a variant of diagram 1028.3 (white marking and legend) rather than diagram 1028.2.

21. A new variant of the bay marking to diagram 1028.4 allows bays to be marked “Permit holders only”, which may be helpful where adjoining sets of bays are reserved for different classes of user.

26. Not all bus stops will have to be clearways if the bus stop flag sign is the only sign used (as may be appropriate on roads where buses can always pull up at the stop without being obstructed by parked vehicles). But any bays marked out for bus stops or stands after the TSRGD 2002 have come into force will have to include the edge of carriageway clearway marking shown in diagrams 1025.1, 1025.3 or 1025.4, and be accompanied by an upright sign to diagram 974 or 975 indicating that stopping by vehicles other than buses (or local buses) is prohibited.

27. A saving has been included in regulation 3 for existing bays to diagrams 1025 and 1025.2 to be retained until 31 December 2006 – by which time the bays should either have been converted to clearways by the addition of a continuous yellow line along the edge of carriageway, or the bay marking should have been removed.
It could be argued that the Council are still using the TSRGD's 1994 which has now been revoked. This would not surprise me in the least.

Information on Restitution and Template letter for claiming such.

2007-11-14T23:23:00.000Z

Simple definition of restitution for a fuller explanation search for "Laws of Restitution"

res·ti·tu·tion (rĕs'tĭ-tū'shən, -tyū'-) n.
The act of restoring to the rightful owner something that has been taken away, lost, or surrendered. .
The act of making good or compensating for loss, damage, or injury; indemnification.
A return to or restoration of a previous state or position.

Restitution based on Unjust Enrichment by Bolton Council due to the fact that the Council took away money from an individual in this case motorists, this income was unlawfully derived and as such you can ask for it back, in Wednesday's paper the Council are admitting that some bays are not correct, two in fact, (Does anyone really believe that) The Council cannot hold onto unlawfully Derived income they must with all due diligence trace the person who paid the Council the sum of money demanded on an unlawful bay and offer restitution, any money left over cannot be kept it must be given to a Charity or Charities.

For example: Mrs Bloggs pays £90 for a parking ticket for not displaying a Pay & Display ticket in Le-Mans Crescent in 2005, it later transpires that the bay was found not be be lawful because it did not comply with the Traffic Signs Regulation and General Directions 2002 it was an unlawful Hybrid Bay, this was confirmed by an email from the Department for Transport run by our very own Ruth Kelly, the council admit that the bays are unlawful in a statement issued by the Director of Environmental Services Malcolm Cox, on the same day another statement was issued by the Director of Legal Services inviting motorists who have been given a Penalty Charge Notice on any unlawful Bay that they could apply for a refund.

If you don't have the Parking Ticket details then first you must ask the Council for these details, Phone Parking Services on 01204 336352 give the vehicle reg No of the car you got the ticket for or your address and they will give the ticket number ask where the location was and the day it was issued and the Contravention on which the ticket was issued.

Now write to Parking Services at The Parking Shop, Minerva House, Chorley Street, Bolton, BL1 4AL. stating this:

Dear Parking Manager.
With reference to recent newspaper reports, regarding unlawful bays, I received a Penalty Charge Notice BO 1234567 for a contravention code 06 Parked without clearly displaying a valid pay & display ticket or voucher, this was in Barn St, Bolton on 15th August 2006, that bay has since been declared unlawful, therefore under the laws of restitution I ask that you repay the £90 I paid plus the parking charge of £0.70 plus statutory interest of 8% from the date you received payment and up to the present date, this amounts to a total of £107.04 which includes interest of 8% £16.04 interest will be added at 2p per day until payment is received
Failure to pay could result in a claim being filed in the County Court
Yours Faithfully

Joan Bloggs

If you had the Bailiffs in then it is different:

Example 2: Mr Bloggs got a parking ticket for Parking on the Mayors Bay (Permit Bay) in October 2006, it transpired that the bay was later deemed to be unlawful and the Council by their actions after a call from a parking campaigner changed the bay twice in just over 5 months and apparently it is still wrong. the Council in a local newspaper article admitted the bay was wrong actually straying away from the word unlawful, but by their own actions deemed the bay to be unlawful.

Using the letter above but adding in the relevant bits send this.

Dear Parking Manager.
With reference to recent newspaper reports, regarding unlawful bays, I received a Penalty Charge Notice BO 2345678 for a contravention code 16 Parked in a permit space without displaying a valid permit, this was in Victoria Square North , Bolton on 15th October 2006, that bay has since been declared unlawful, therefore under the laws of restitution I ask that you repay the £384 I paid to the Bailiffs plus damages of £175 for anxiety and distress plus statutory interest of 8% from the date you received payment, this amounts to a total of £607.53 which includes interest of 8% £48.53. interest will be added at 13p per day until payment is received.

Failure to pay could result in a claim being filed in the County Court

Yours Faithfully

Joe Bloggs

If you had the Bailiffs in and they levied distress on your Goods and Chattels (Goods that Bailiffs can move, Car, T.V, Dishwasher. DVD, etc)

Using the letter above but adding in the relevant bits send this.

Dear Parking Manager.
With reference to recent newspaper reports, regarding unlawful bays, I received a Penalty Charge Notice BO 3456789 for a contravention code 30 Parked for longer than permitted, this was in School Street Westhoughton.on the 8th September 2003. that bay has since been declared unlawful by a spokesperson from the Department for Transport, therefore under the laws of restitution I ask that you repay the £85 I paid to the Bailiffs plus damages of £175 for Anxiety and Distress plus Compensation for the removal of my goods and Chattels (See inventory list left by the Bailiffs) amounting to £3,230 which at auction and other Bailiffs charges amounted to realising only £397 off the cost of the Penalty Charge which was £472, I also claim statutory interest of 8% from the date you received payment, this amounts to a total of £4659.66 which includes statutory interest of 8% £1169.66. interest will be added at 81p per day until payment is received.
I also reserve my right to file a claim in the County Court for Punitive Damages.
Failure to pay could result in a claim being filed in the County Court

Yours Faithfully

Mrs Janet Smith

The Unlawful Bays and The LIE the whole LIE and nothing but LIES from Bolton Council

2007-11-14T22:24:00.000Z

The back alley to the left in Barn Street is still being enforced despite me informing the Council that the lines are unenforceable.

In response to Bolton Council's statement in the Bolton News on Wednesday 14th November 2007 about there only being two bays that were wrong and if it was you who made the statement Mr Eastwood then your nose should be getting fairly large by now, also if you are a lawyer in the Legal department you have brought shame on your profession by being economical with the truth.
Below is a list of all the Parking Spaces I have checked out, photographed and documented, there are 89 locations in Bolton where a parking ticket can be issued if I haven't found any lawful bays in the 24 locations listed below, what are the odds of me finding any in the remaining 55 locations, anyone want to give me some odds, no takers eh!

If anyone wants a pic and an explanation of why any of the bays numbered below are unlawful email me, I will reply to your enquiry to the best of my endeavours, please leave your email address so I can make the reply, if anybody wishes to put in a claim for a refund then now is the time to do it.
I am away for a week in hospital from Saturday having a knee replaced (and my head examined) when I get back I will reply via email. bmoss@ntlworld.com or illegalfines@ntlworld.com

If you wish to get your money back then please read the next blog for a template letter.

BOLTON'S UNLAWFUL BAYS
1. Le- mans crescent = 3 Pay & Display bays approx holding 18
2. Le- mans crescent = 1 Loading Bay approx holding 2
3. Howell Croft North = 1 Pay & Display bays approx holding 5
4. Howell Croft North = 1 Taxi Bay approx holding 5
5. Victoria Sq North = 1 Taxi Bay approx holding 4
6. Victoria Sq North = 4 Disabled bays approx holding 10
7. Victoria Sq North = 1 Permit bay approx holding 1
8. Victoria Sq South = 1 Disabled bay approx holding 4
9. Victoria Sq South = 3 Pay & Display bays approx holding 8
10. Victoria Sq North = 2 permit bays holding 2
11. Howell St South = 1 Pay & Display bays holding 2
12. Howell St South = 1 Loading bay holding 1
13. Cheadle Square = Series of Echelon bays approx holding 16
14. Queen St = 2 Pay & display bays approx holding 12
15. Queen St = 2 Disabled bays approx holding 2
16. Barn St = 1 Pay & Display bay holding approx 6
17. Back St Gardens = 1 Pay & Display bay holding approx 10
18. Silverware St = 5 Pay & Display bays holding approx 20
19. Churchbank = 1 Disabled bay approx holding 3
20. Churchbank = 4 Pay & Display bays holding approx 20
21. Churchbank = Series of Echelon bays approx holding 7
22. Mawdsley St = 1 loading bay approx holding 1
23. Mawdsley St = 1 Pay & Display bay approx holding 2
24. Back Cheapside = 2 Disabled bays approx holding 8
25. Knowsley St = 1 Taxi bay holding approx 6 Taxis
26. Knowsley St = 2 Loading bays approx holding 3
27. Back Knowsley St = 2 Loading bays approx holding 4
28. Central St = 1 loading bay approx holding 2
29. Crown St = 1 Loading bay approx holding 2
30. Dawson Lane = 2 Pay & Display bays approx holding 12
31. Gartside St = 1 permit holders only bay approx holding 6
32. Gartside St = 4 Pay & Display bays approx holding 14
33. Marsden Road = 1 Pay & Display bays approx holding 5
34. Marsden Road = 1 Loading bay approx holding 2
35. Lorne St = 1 disabled bay approx holding 2
36. Deane road = Free outside 257 Deane Road approx holding 7

Westhoughton
School St = 1 Free bay restricted times approx holding 6
King St = 1 Loading bay approx holding 2
King St = 1 Disabled bay approx holding 2
Mill St = Resident permit bay approx holding 5

Illegal Parking Bays repainted, Still not Correct TAXI BAY Victoria Sq North

2007-11-09T23:49:00.000Z

>>>>>>>>> BEFORE >>>>>>>>Click on the pics to enlarge>>>>>>>> AFTER >>>>>>>>>>>>

I have had a look at Bolton's new bays yesterday and whilst they have still not yet finished them all, this taxi Bay appears to be nowhere near what the bay should look like, the signing is totally incorrect, they are haphazard,

A spokesman for the Department for Transport said:
The upright sign seems to be a permitted variant of sign 650.2 in the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 and the bay may conform to road marking 1028.2 This bay reserves parking for taxis should not have road marking 1018.1 which means parking is prohibited at any time. One may imagine circumstances when one combines road markings diagrams 1028.2 and 1017 but not 1018.1.

a 1017 diagram is a Single Yellow Line a 1018.1 is a Double Yellow Line so it appears that Taxis are not even allowed to park lawfully. There are 3 lines at the start of this bay and two at the other end, there should be two lines only at each end. the lines should be 600mm and the gaps can be 600mm Min to 2400mm Max, the minimum and maximum measurements gives the council Latitude to make the bays so that the Character of the Marking is maintained within the length of the bay, in other words the Gaps and Lines longitudinally should all be the same size, i.e the Lines should all be 600mm and the gaps should be whatever calculation the length of the bay determines them to be, there is a variance of 15% above and 10% below , but the character needs be maintained despite the variance. So despite all the money the council have thrown at this bay it is still unlawful, "It does not exist in Law".
So nothing new there then and more to the point.

Free Parking and Wasted Council Tax
Mr Molyneux please take Note!

http://www.theboltonnews.co.uk/news/boltonnews/display.var.1814406.0.illegal_parking_bays_are_repainted.php#comments

Police put parking investigation on hold

2007-11-06T11:28:00.000Z

The Police have put the investigation on hold until the Council can come up with a water tight excuse for illegally taking money off motorists for parking in illegal bays in and around the Town Centre. Superintendant Durkin from Bolton central told me that the Council were using Chapter 5 of the Traffic Signs Manual to back up their reason for laying down illegal bays, The Traffic Signs Manual reinforces my allegation that the Bays are illegal and nothing in the TS Manual overrides the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002.
On Thursday through Mr Paul Winnard a spokesman for the council, I gave the Council until Midnight on Monday 5th November to Cease enforcement of all on street parking bays where a penalty charge notice can be issued and to issue restitution to all motorists who were given a Penalty Charge Notice in those bays, I can say that no communication has been received from the Council.
I must now ask Bolton Police to carry out a full criminal investigation of the Illegal Hybrid Parking Bays in Bolton.

The following was taken from Saturdays Bolton News

POLICE have put an investigation into claims parking bays across Bolton are illegal on hold.
Leading officers agreed to look into the allegations after they were contacted by campaigner Barry Moss.
Mr Moss, aged 61, of Daisy Hill, says he has yet to find an on-street bay in Bolton where the white markings comply with regulations.
He claims some bays are the wrong length, while in others individual parking spaces have not been marked out and the gap between split white lines alongside the bays is the wrong size.
Mr Moss says the council is guilty of misfeasance - wilful misconduct by a public officer.
But police have put their investigation on hold while the council seeks legal advice.
Supt Andy Durkin said: "The council do not accept at face value what Mr Moss is saying and are seeking legal advice.
"Until such time that advice is clear I am not going to add a third dimension to the situation."
Mr Moss said he accepted Supt Durkin's decision.
But added that the council must now suspend enforcement across all parking spaces, make them legal and then repay more than £6 million in fines.
The council this week suspended enforcement on two parking bays with space for 18 cars in Le Mans Crescent and Victoria Square North.
It admitted they had been repainted to the wrong length.

By removing these lines, could the Council be accused of Tampering with Evidence, however I have photographs of the bays before they were changed.

http://www.neilherron.blogspot.com/

From one Campaigner to another

2007-11-02T19:04:00.000Z

Quote from the Bolton News.
Cllr Nicholas Peel (Labour) said "Lines for the parking spaces in Victoria Square South and Le Mans Crescent would be repainted over the weekend".

He added: "A lot of the claims are incorrect, or have been rectified, and where we think there might be something in them we are seeking legal advice".

"To solve this, we need the courts to step in and interpret what the law means, rather than get swamped down in anomalies and technicalities."

And now a word from the campaigner
Well done Barry!!!

"To solve this, we need the courts to step in and interpret what the
law means, rather than get swamped down in anomalies and
technicalities."

translated means:
Bolton Council with unlimited public funds, 'professionals' paid for by the
taxpayer, are so inept that we need the Courts to help us out of this
mess. If we had been honest in the first place instead of committing
fraud and attempting to show people who's boss, then perphaps people
like Barry Moss etc might not be hammering us.

Westminster PCN and Clamp

2007-11-02T00:16:00.000Z

The enclosed letter was as a result from a cry for help from Joe who works in Westminster, he came back to his car had a PCN and a clamp, he emailed me and from Bolton with the aid of Joe, a digital camera, a tape measure, and the Traffic Regulation Order, I determined the bay was invalid, he wrote to the Council for restitution and with the evidence I gave to Joe he got restitution of £115 on the illegal bay in Golden Square Westminster. Another victory against a Council collecting money on an illegal bay, when will these Council's toe the line. well done Joe for sticking with it.

CLICK ON THE LETTER TO ENLARGE IT

TODAY IN BOLTON... Council do a Cover Up but on Pay and Display machines (Not Good Enough.)

2007-11-01T23:20:00.000Z

CLICK ON THE PICS TO MAKE THEM LARGER

Sorry! these pics look like they've been put on at random, bit like the bays really.

IF YOU CAN SPOT A LEGAL BAY IN THESE PICS YOU GET A TENNER OFF COUNCILLOR PEEL. because I am sure he would be more than happy to give a tenner away to find a legal bay anywhere in Bolton. THESE BAYS ARE ALL IN CHURCH BANK. the Echelon Bays (1033 bay) are invisible, but there may be the odd millimetre about eh Nick, but there's still not enough paint here to make a line let alone a bay.

Read this first
http://www.theboltonnews.co.uk/search/display.var.1801090.0.0.php

The Illegal Parking Bay issue will get worse before it gets better, it appears some of you have fallen into Labour Councillors Nick Peels trap of Politics, Mr Peel is the chairman of The Car Parking Policy Development Group of which a meeting was held yesterday, it was hurriedly brought forward by nearly three weeks to yesterday, This meeting was held in camera, the public were not invited which is against council policy, only an executive meeting can be held in camera (Without the Public)the reply formulated from that meeting is the reply you have just read from Mr Peel in page 2 of today's Bolton News, Mr Peel has been totally misinformed by the Council, if he or any other member of the council thinks it is about Millimetres they are totally wrong, Mr Peel has lied through his back teeth to the Bolton News, and the people of Bolton, furthermore, I would call Mr Peel a liar to his face on National TV, if it was about Millimetres I would not have brought the Parking issue up at all and had I done so, it would have been soon been shot down because there is a legal term which the Bolton Legal and Parking services would have used as a get out, the term is De Minimis Non Curat Lex meaning ‘The law does not concern itself with trifles', why did the Council not use this legal get out if it is about Millimetres, Mr Peel I am no idiot and neither are the public, you have lied to the Public through a newspaper, retract your statement publicly, resign and move away, the good citizens of Bolton do not want the likes of liars acting on their behalf. The illegal bays are illegal because they are Unlawful Hybrids, they are a hotchpotch of several types of bays of which there are only four and Bolton Council cannot get even one bay correct, but even if Mr Peel was telling a semblance of truth, what about the bays that are illegal because of missing lines, take a walk down church bank, the bays are invisible, no lines exist at all except the odd millimetre, perhaps this is what Mr Peel is referring to when he is talking about Millimetres and if it is about Millimetres watch the workmen around Le-Mans Crescent when they remove the special paint, they will not be putting the paint back, they will be completely transforming the Bay to make it legal so they can hold onto your Parking Fine lawfully, but I bet you a pound to a penny it will still be illegal when it's finished because no one in the Highways Dept whose job it is to make sure everything is OK do not have a clue what they are doing. if the Council are going to take £60 off you then they must use the law to take it. You can ask for restitution from the council, write a letter and ask them for your money back, if they won't give it you go to the Police and ask them to investigate a criminal offence of FRAUD. here is an email received today from Bolton Council who have been stalling over ceasing enforcement because they say they are relying on Chapter 5 of the Traffic Signs Manual.
Dear Mr Moss Please find below the answer to your question.
Bolton Council is bound by the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 as this is a regulation. It also uses Chapter 5 of the Traffic Signs manual to put into context, apply, interpret and install. We refer back to the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 if there is any discrepancy between the two documents. I have been using the Traffic Signs and General Directions 2002 which is a Statutory Instrument to hammer home to Bolton Council of why the bays are illegal, Chapter 5 of the Traffic Signs manual not only reinforces my allegations but overturns their argument completely. the operative words in the email are BOLTON COUNCIL ARE BOUND BY. Here is an extract from the first paragraph of the Traffic Signs Manual.
1. Introduction.
1.1 The Traffic Signs Manual is intended to give advice to traffic authorities and their agents on the correct use of signs and road markings.
Mandatory requirements are set out in the current version of the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions; nothing in the manual can override these.
so that's it in a nutshell, I am right and the Council are wrong and Nick Peel is a LIAR.

This Week in Bolton... COUNCIL CEASES ENFORCEMENT IN TWO AREAS

2007-10-31T23:56:00.000Z

CLICK ON THE PICTURES TO INCREASE SIZE

Bolton Council have ceased enforcement in Le-Mans Crescent on the long bay at the side of the Museum in Le-Mans Crescent, also across the road from the Magistrates Court on a double bay at the junction of Victoria Square North and Le-Mans Crescent and in Victoria Square South for bays at the side of the Town Hall at the back of the two permit bays.
They have not ceased enforcement on the basis that the signing is illegal it is another reason, if it is the TRO then again the TRO must have invalid from October 2000 which is when the Council took over Decriminalised Parking Enforcement (DPE) from the Police, if you have had a PCN in any of these locations the Council will have to issue restitution (refund) on the basis that the TRO is invalid, you may also ask the Police to investigate a criminal offence on this basis, but you must first ask the council for restitution and simple interest of 8% from when you got the ticket, if your PCN went to Bailiffs you can also ask the council for all the money back, if they won't pay you can issue a County Court claim for damages. more info phone me or email me.
All the bays in and around Bolton Town Centre are illegal so if you don't get any joy from the council you should ask the Police to investigate a criminal complaint, I have all the pictures and locations of all the illegal bays.

PCN CANCELLED BY ADJUDICATOR ON ILLEGAL BAYS

2007-10-31T23:13:00.001Z

NPAS Adjudicator Mr Stephen Knapp allowed an appeal on Friday 26th October because the disabled Parking Bays in Victoria Square South were illegal, Bolton Council knew they were illegal yet they continued to let the appeal go to adjudication, this is vexatious, they wanted the £60 from the elderly Gentleman who got the parking ticket.
When an appeal is allowed, the council should investigate the bay to check it is lawful with the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002, S.I 3113 this statute is the only definitive authority the council can rely on to ensure the traffic signing meets the requirements of the law, also at the same time the Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) should also be checked to find out if the bay has been placed as per the TRO, it is the TRO that legalises the bay so the Council can issue a Penalty Charge Notice, collect and pursue the money, that is assuming the signing of the Bay is legal.
I suggest a Parking Czar should be introduced to carry out this checking procedure, all checks should be carried out as soon as is practical after the Council has had the results from the adjudicators, this new procedure will give the council more transparency, and I believe the public trust would return if the council are seen to be fair, just and lawful.

Poll hijacked by council

2007-10-30T02:42:00.000Z

The Poll to the left has been hijacked by the Council I believe it is done by Labour Councillors and Council employees trying to influence the vote, so nothing new there then.

Nick Peel Labour Councillor on Parking Policy group whose allowances recently published at £15,000 reads this blog, not bad wages for a part timer, think I'll send off for an application form.

Yesterday in Bolton

2007-10-30T02:17:00.000Z

Went to Bolton on Monday regarding a parking matter and we parked in Le-Mans Crescent without buying a pay and display ticket, I was expecting a PCN when we got back because we were away for more than an hour and guess what, no parking ticket, I don't believe the council have ceased enforcement, however if they have then well done the Council but it should have happened months ago, on friday at the parking appeals in Bolton it was another good day for the appellants at least one was on an illegal disabled bay in Victoria Square South, whereupon the adjudicator Mr Stephen Knapp had no hesitation in cancelling the ticket, it justifies my allegations against the Council that all Parking Bays in Bolton are signed illegally. if you do get a parking ticket on an illegal bay you may make a complaint to the Police, they may not take you serious but stress to them that it is not their job to interpret the law but to investigate complaints.
I will continue to attend the parking appeal venue in Bolton and assist appellants with their appeals, more appellants have won their appeals with a little advice and help from yours truly.

Please feel free to comment on any issues, click on comments, then enter your comments in the Pop up box, please no profanities or I will have to remove it...

Comment from Richard Bentley taken from Bolton News regarding Illegal Signing in Bolton from Front Page Bolton News Sat 27th Oct

2007-10-30T01:52:00.000Z

Follow this Link to Bolton News front Page sat 27th Oct 2007
http://www.theboltonnews.co.uk/search/display.var.1791050.0.0.phpAs a signing consultant working in the private sector, my work primarily involves me being an independent expert witness to assist the Courts.
I am continually called upon to prepare reports into the legal requirements for, and the legitimacy of signing regimes. These reports are primarily created for Court prosecutions and/or parking civil proceedings/parking appeals.
I continue to be astounded by the actions, or should I say inaction of local authorities to comply with simple and basic Statute Law, the Regulations and the directions of the Secretary of State for Transport.
The legislation is often referred to by council officers as too complicated. There are basically only four diagrams/pictures of parking bays to follow and two diagrams for yellow lines. These are simple and if too complicated, technical drawings are free to download from the DfT website.
Provided the quote by the press is correct, once again we have a highway authority with a legal duty to only employ prescribed traffic signs stating they are writing to the Government for clarification on what they continually quote as being: guidance.
There is no guidance that requires clarification and, once again the public are being spun.
Any guidance documents issued by the Department for Transport always defaults to the legislation, in this case, the contents of the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002.
As such the legislation is binding and the use of any 'sign' not within the publication, without the written site specific authority the Secretary of State for Transport is illegal and the authority is simply acting beyond its powers (for those that doubt read Chapter 1, the Traffic Signs Manual, Part 3, the Legal Responsibilities for Signs at point 1.18).
Therefore the use of anything that does not meet the precise requirements of signing law is 'non-prescribed' . Additionally, de minimis (minor deviation from law) is often quoted, however, the Regulations deal with de-minimus in the permitted variations and Regulation 12. There is nothing beyond that, as Lord Parker found in the High Court ruling in the case of Davies v Heatley 1971
Having worked with Philip Somorakis and also formerly as a Police Officer, I can confirm that the criminal offence of misfeasance in public office should be dealt with by the Police and, additionally should anyone care to look at the CPS website you can see the additional criminal offence of misconduct in public office.
Do not be fooled into believing that the council officers do not understand the legislation, all signing 'law' is written for engineers to both understand and apply. National conferences and seminars are held to assist, I was the opening speaker at the IHIE Conference this September, talking about this very subject.
The public should also consider that their councils have legal departments and hold copies of all the legislation, plus, as their comments in the paper show, they have access to free access to additional guidance by the Department for Transport, Westminster, London.
If anyone is actually interested in understanding the legislation, what signing should look like and also the
consequences of signing inaction they need look no further than the advice pages of my website: rmbconsulting.co.uk

This week in Bolton (Police called in)

2007-10-18T22:32:00.000+01:00

I have asked the Greater Manchester Police to issue a Prosecution against Mr Sean Harriss the Chief Executive of Bolton Council. The Charge is Malfeasance which is a Tort and can be a civil wrong or a criminal offence, however in this case it is the latter, the Police appear to think that it is a civil case and would not take me on the first call I made, I phoned the Crown Prosecution Service who informed me that they prosecute cases on behalf of the Police and can only do this if the Police bring the Prosecution first, they told me to get hold of the Police Complaints Commission and make the complaint, on the second call to the Police I managed to get it logged they said someone will call me back, again the officer another Policewoman informed me that it was a civil offence, they are not supposed to interpret the law that is not their job, that it what the CPS and the courts are for, the Police are there to uphold the law and to investigate the complaint, however guess what, no phone call, I phoned again and was given a sympathetic ear by a Policeman who have more logic I think, he said he would get someone to call at my house next week to take a statement, so I'll keep you posted, I don't want to go down this path but the Council are being totally Intransigent which nobody likes, if I don't get a visit I have no alternative but to go through the PCC.
WATCH THIS SPACE

Next week in Bolton (Council Meeting) Illegal Parking Bays on the Agenda

2007-10-18T22:25:00.000+01:00

The issue of illegal parking bays will be brought up at a a full council meeting on 24th October 19.00 hrs by Mr John Higson who is concerned at these illegal bays.
the public can attend so try to get down and show support fo the camapign, through the main entrance go upstairs, follow the throng.

This week in Bolton (Another PCN Cancelled)

2007-10-18T21:37:00.000+01:00

I received this email a few days ago from a friend who's wife had picked up a PCN in Central St car park.
Hello Barry, Well another feather in your cap, or notch on your bed post whatever it may be. They have cancelled the penalty charge notice. Big thanks for that, tell us your tipple and I'm sure we can oblige. cheers Bill
below is the email I asked him to send to parking services.

Hi Billy.
Forward this below to the Parking services
Barry.

Dear Sir/Madam
With Reference to: PCN no BO61074546 I wish to make an informal appeal against the PCN

1. The bay has two lines on one side, this is confusing, therefore which is the real one.
2. The PCN is a nullity because part of S66 (3) (a-f)of the 1991 RTA informing a motorist where the instruction to pay are printed on the tear off slip which does not form part of the PCN see LBBarnet v Hugh Moses.
3. There is no signage anywhere in the parking place to inform amotorist that the Council will relieve them of £60 if they park over a line, this is against the law and against my human rights, a motorist must be informed of all the possible contraventions applicable to the parking place, or parking space, there are no contraventions listed on the Pay & Display machine nor are there any repeater signs in the parking place.
4. I now ask you to cancel the PCN on the points I have raised, if not I will ask for costs at an NPAS appeal as the Council would be pursuing a vexatious claim for Penalty Charges.
5. Please reply by email so I know that I have received it, I have been informed that too much post goes astray from Bolton Council Parking services.
6. Please acknowledge save receipt of this email.

Yours Faithfully

W. Ireton

And this is the reply from Parking Services

Dear Mr Ireton

PENALTY CHARGE NOTICE NO: BO61074546

Thank you for your correspondence regarding the above mentioned Penalty Charge Notice.

I am writing to inform you that after considering the circumstances expressed in your letter, the notice will be cancelled and the charge withdrawn.
Yours sincerely Customer Services Officer

I do not know which option they chose to cancel the PCN, but if you get a PCN include all of the options above it may get the PCN cancelled

Day 3 Picture 3 Le-mans Crescent

2007-10-15T22:34:00.000+01:00

Again pics of 3 unlawful bays this time in Le-mans Crescent Bolton Town Centre 2 pay and

display bays 1 loading bay, Click on the Picture to Supersize it

Day 2 Picture 2 of Bolton's Illegal Parking Bays

2007-10-08T22:28:00.000+01:00

Dear Mr Harriss,
As promised please find attached pictures of an another illegal Hybrid bay.
I copy here again the remarks from Department for Transport relating to this type of Bay.
Traffic signs on any road to which the public has access, including private roads, must conform to the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 or be specially authorised.

Mr Kelly states this picture is road marking to diagram 1028.4 but I observe a double termination marking in the photographs which does not conform to the diagram 1028.4 in Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 (TSRGD). The road marking parking bay with a double termination in TSRGD 2002 is diagram 1032, where individual parking spaces are marked. I do not see any individual parking spaces. This marking seems to be an unlawful hybrid of 1028.4 and 1032 and does not conform to a single diagram in TSRGD 2002.

In direction 25 of TSRGD 2002 in the table (page 430) items 13,14 and 15 indicate the signs that must be used with 1028.4 which can be signs to diagram 639.1B, 660, 660.3, 660.5, 660.6, 660.7, 661.1, 661.2A, 661.3a, 662, 667, 667.1, 668, 668.1 or 801. However please also note Sub paragraph (2) on page 431 of regulations What ever is placed should also accord with the Traffic Regulation Order which places the waiting restriction.

Under the FOIA please supply the following information. I hold yourself responsible for the replies within the FOIA timeframe.

How many Penalty Charge Notices have been issued on this bay in Mawdsley St Bolton.
How many went to bailiff stage.
Please supply copy of Traffic Regulation Order for this bay
Please supply copy of Special Authorisation for this this hybrid bay.

You may treat 3 and 4 above as a normal request within Bolton Councils 10 day reply remit.

To reduce the impact on the environment and public funded postal charges, all replies should be sent via electronic means i.e. Email. No Paper copies.

Yours Sincerely
Barry Moss

Today in the Bolton News (well actually it was Friday 5th Oct)

2007-10-08T16:24:00.001+01:00

Parking signs changed after ticket appeal
By Rob Devey
Comment Read Comments (7)
A CAMPAIGNER has scored a victory in his battle against what he says are illegal parking signs in Bolton.
Bolton Council has changed signs in its car parks across the town following a complaint from Barry Moss.
The signs said vehicles "must park within a parking space", but did not explicitly state they must be "wholly" within an allotted bay.

That was the reason why the National Parking Adjudication Service overturned a ticket handed to Mr Moss's daughter-in-law, Tracey Pilkington.
The mother-of-four, of Park Road, Westhoughton, parked her Vauxhall Tigra five-inches over the parking space line at the Topp Way car park in Bolton, last December. The council has since altered all 24 signs to include the word "wholly".
Mr Moss, aged 61, of Hindley Road, Daisy Hill, was informed of the changes to the signs in a letter from the council's parking manager, Sheila Jackson.
Referring to the decision made by adjudicator Stephen Knapp, Ms Jackson stressed that each appeal was judged on its own merits and that the council had been successful on other occasions.
Ms Jackson added: "Therefore, this decision does not make parking enforcement in Bolton illegal and there is no reference to this anywhere in Mr Knapp's decision.
"However, Bolton Council has now taken independent legal advice and you will be pleased to hear that the signs on the off-street car parks are to be amended to reflect Mr Knapp's comments."
Mr Moss welcomed the council's move, but said: "The council should have got its signs right in the first place and these changes are costing taxpayers' money.
"Even though they are changing the signs they are still not admitting they were in the wrong and they are still not issuing refunds to people who got tickets."
Parking wardens earned more than £1 million for the council by issuing nearly 45,000 tickets between April, 2006, and March, 2007.
The £60 fines are reduced to £30 if paid within two weeks.

Illegal Parking Bays in Bolton, The Proof

2007-10-07T19:18:00.000+01:00

Sent the below letter to Mr Sean Harris the CEO of Bolton Council.

The proof that the bays are illegal is in the form of a an email sent by the Department for Transport to me last week regarding a picture of a bay I sent to them which is typical of all the bays in currently being used Bolton.

To the Chief Executive Bolton Council
Dear Mr Harriss.
I can now supply the proof to you that all the bays in Bolton on which Bolton Council are issuing Penalty Charge Notices on, are indeed illegal.

I also now have the evidence that the Council are guilty of Maladministration and Malfeasance, this evidence is in the form of several Penalty Charge Notices which I invited the Parking Attendants to issue to me to provide the evidence that they were illegally issuing PCN on illegal bays, despite putting the Council on notice to the fact they were illegal, the Parking Attendants were guilty of aiding and abetting a criminal offence by issuing out the Penalty Charge Notices, they were notified of this at the time of issuing, I have their collar numbers and if the need arises they will be subpoenaed.

Armed with the above information will you now:

Cease Enforcement until the bays are made lawful.
Issue refunds to the motorists who have already paid the Penalty Charges including those that incurred bailiffs charges.
Pay Compensatory damages to the motorists whose PCN's were enforced by the Bailiff.
Pay Compensatory damages to the motorists whose goods and chattels were removed as a result of enforcement of PCN's by the Bailiff.
Remove the Contractors NCP who are negligent by not informing Bolton Council Parking Services through their Street Furniture Proforma that traffic signs are worn and need replacing. (It is their duty to inform Parking Services of the need to repair, redo, or replace defective traffic signs, this is done through the Parking Attendants Code of Practice which each PA should be issued with on starting employment)
Issue a press statement informing them that the bays are unlawful and the council will issue apologies, apply refunds and damages.
Resign.

Mr Harriss you have seven days (7) to comply with the all the requests as stated, non are negotiable.

Between now and the end of the seven days, I will send pictures of all the bays that the DfT have deemed illegal.

Why has the removal of the trailer in the picture not been actioned, it has been there for at least 4 weeks as I know of, if it were a car it would have been given Penalty Charge Notices every day, it is taking up precious parking space reserved for vehicles.

Today's pics are of illegal bays are in Dawson Lane (off St Georges Road) and Barn St (Side of Job centre plus Black Horse St.)

Comment from the DfT
Traffic signs on any road to which the public has access, including private roads, must conform to the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 or be specially authorised.

Mr Kelly (Bolton Council highways) states this picture is road marking to diagram 1028.4 but I observe a double termination marking in the photographs which does not conform to the diagram 1028.4 in Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 (TSRGD). The road marking parking bay with a double termination in TSRGD 2002 is diagram 1032, where individual parking spaces are marked. I do not see any individual parking spaces. This marking seems to be an unlawful hybrid of 1028.4 and 1032 and does not conform to a single diagram in TSRGD 2002.

In direction 25 of TSRGD 2002 in the table (page 430) items 13,14 and 15 indicate the signs that must be used with 1028.4 which can be signs to diagram 639.1B, 660, 660.3, 660.5, 660.6, 660.7, 661.1, 661.2A, 661.3a, 662, 667, 667.1, 668, 668.1 or 801. However please also note Sub paragraph (2) on page 431 of regulations What ever is placed should also accord with the Traffic
Regulation Order which places the waiting restriction.

Wheelchair access Parking Appeals Venue

2007-09-29T00:22:00.000+01:00

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.

Today in the Bolton News

2007-09-28T21:08:00.000+01:00

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)

2007-09-28T18:43:00.000+01:00

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

Look at this on You Tube about Sunderland

2007-09-26T22:07:00.000+01:00

Seen in a recent BBC documentary regarding Sunderland Parking Regime.

Part 1http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DGVZmWdNZD4&mode=related&search=
Part 2http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IC3KeY6u5hY&mode=related&search~
Part 3http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-65BuRY4Sp4&mode=related&search=

Illegal bays in Church Bank

2007-09-25T12:33:00.000+01:00

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.

Parking out of Bay

2007-09-14T23:36:00.000+01:00

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

2007-09-14T21:23:00.000+01:00

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

2007-09-14T19:45:00.000+01:00

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.

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

2007-09-10T23:59:00.000+01:00

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)

2007-09-10T23:33:00.000+01:00

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

2007-09-10T23:28:00.000+01:00

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

What type of bay is it

2007-09-07T20:35:00.000+01:00

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

A letter to the Chief Executive Bolton Council

2007-09-05T21:40:00.000+01:00

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

Claim for £90 Restitution

2007-09-04T14:08:00.000+01:00

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.

What type of Bay is this then?

2007-08-30T17:25:00.000+01:00

Hello everyone.
My Thanks to Neil Herron of the Metric Martyrs Fund for assisting with this Blog set up, you can read more of Neils exploits with Councils up and down the country, visit his website and blogspot for some really interesting and hard hitting stuff on parking http://www.parkingappeals.co.uk/

http://www.parkingappeals.co.uk/Home/MotormouthBlog/tabid/148/Default.aspx

My first post is about a bay in School St Westhoughton, there are about four shops in School st amongst them are two well known shops and some customers of these shops, Blockbuster and Leap Frog Computers have been at the sharp end of over zealous Parking Attendants they seem to appear from nowhere, in a response from a lady for help about a PCN issued for being over the bay by a couple of inches I have checked the Traffic Regulation Order for School St and although the Double yellow Lines are valid with the TRO, the bay though does not conform to the Traffic Signs Regulations and Directions 2002, the bay on the right is not listed in any shape or form, it is a bay that Bolton Council have invented, so it is not a Lawful bay, it is a mongrel bay crossed between a 1032 bay and 1028.4 bay the double broken line at the front of the vehicle bay is from a 1032 bay whilst the long broken line parallel with the kerbline is from a 1028.4 bay, if it had a single broken line at the front it could pass for a 1028.2 bay if the lines were yellow and if they were white it would be a 1028.3 bay, Bolton have cocked up again, so nothing different there then, anyone who has had a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) issued in this bay and paid it, can apply for restitution.

You will probably read a lot about TSRGD's, TRO's, and PCN's in future Bloggs on here, so to explain them in that order. The TSRGD is a book about an inch thick (25mm) and is known as Statutory Instrument (S.I)3113 it is about the signs the councils will provide for the control of Traffic in any Borough, a sign can be on the ground, as in lines, or on a plate, as on a pole, or on a board, as in a direction sign, or Condition of Use sign at the entrance to a car park, if the sign does not conform in any way like the one above then it is invalid, if the sign is as described in the book but different in the measurement we refer to the permitted variations, if the sign is within the permitted variations it is valid, if not it is invalid See page 18 Table 2 of the TSRGD for the permitted variations for Schedule 6 if you have the book, otherwise you can view your very own copy at: http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2002/20023113.htm#11 A Traffic Regulation Order is like a Bye law and it the TRO that makes the Lines and signs in any Borough lawful, The TRO legalises them in a way the Council can issue, collect and pursue monetary penalties issued whilst enforcing the necessary road acts of which there are quite a few, from drink driving to running a red light and from parking a few inches over a line, to forgetting to sign your driving licence, and a Penalty Charge Notice is a document issued to to an individual who commits a contravention, of which there are lots, see here for a copy:http://www.parking-appeals.gov.uk/IveReceived/PCNcodes.asp the wording on a PCN is laid down in the Road Traffic act 1991 section 66(3)(a-f) http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1991/ukpga_19910040_en_7
'The 1991 Road Traffic Act creates a scheme for the civil enforcement of parking control. Under this scheme, motorists become liable to pay financial penalties when certain specified statutory conditions are met. If the statutory conditions are not met, then the financial liability does not arise.' that last para was from a high court case of which you will be hearing and reading about from time to time, commonly known as the Barnet case, or the 2 date issue.
The Majority, of PCN's issued can be appealed against and won, because all councils rely on the fact that less than 1% of PCN's are taken to appeal and 63% of those individuals that do attend the appeal in person win their appeal, but this reduces to 40% if they do not attend, 30% of all PCN's are paid in full within 14 days. I will print more statistics here when I have compiled my list from Freedom of Information Request from Bolton Council regarding PCN's.
Bolton Council is a Lawless Council bordering on criminality and will be exposed in the coming months.