Jump to content


Years worth of parking fines found illegal - Council refuses to refund


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3874 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-22993060

 

Disgraceful behaviour by Newham council. They've been caught out using illegal cameras but are refusing to refund drivers who have paid their tickets already.

Is it possible to take a council to Small Claims court I wonder? (Haven't been caught out like this myself, just voicing the question)

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The council says previous cases show it does not need to repay drivers.

 

I would say those who have paid would need to look at these previous cases and see on what basis refunds do not need to be made.

 

IMHO if they have unlawfully issued tickets and received monies then they MUST repay.

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

Uploading documents to CAG ** Instructions **

Looking for a draft letter? Use the CAG Library

Dealing with Customer Service Departments? - read the CAG Guide first

1: Making a PPI claim ? - Q & A's and spreadsheets for single premium policy - HERE

2: Take back control of your finances - Debt Diaries

3: Feel Bullied by Creditors or Debt Collectors? Read Here

4: Staying Calm About Debt  Read Here

5: Forum rules - These have been updated - Please Read

BCOBS

1: How can BCOBS protect you from your Banks unfair treatment

2: Does your Bank play fair - You can force your Bank to play Fair with you

3: Banking Conduct of Business Regulations - The Hidden Rules

4: BCOBS and Unfair Treatment - Common Examples of Banks Behaving Badly

5: Fair Treatment for Credit Card Holders and Borrowers - COBS

Advice & opinions given by citizenb are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

PLEASE DO NOT ASK ME TO GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU PROVIDE A LINK TO YOUR THREAD THEN I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER ADVICE THERE:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-22993060

 

 

Parking tickets were illegally issued by a dozen cameras over at least two years, a London council has admitted - but it refuses to refund fined drivers.

 

Local authorities are only allowed to use cameras authorised by the Vehicle Certification Agency (VCA).

 

But a Newham Council internal report, obtained by the BBC, shows between 2011 and 2013 it issued 6,840 tickets from unauthorised cameras - making £350,000.

 

The council says previous cases show it does not need to repay drivers.

 

By law, only camera models that have been specifically authorised by the VCA can be used by councils.

Otherwise authorities might use cameras that are not of a high enough calibre to be relied upon for evidence.

But Newham Council was using cameras that did not have approval.

 

When the problem came to light in February 2013, it commissioned accountancy firm Pricewaterhouse Coopers to carry out an audit of how many unlawful tickets it had issued

Link to post
Share on other sites

You have to claim it back for yourself.

Some years ago Croydon were caught out fining people for making an illegal turn when it wasnt an illegal turn and were ordered to repay everyone. They didnt and nothing happened to them so there is no incentive to refund those wrongly charged a penalty. Now, if the courts had the guts to drag someone from Croydon in front of a judge and then plonk them in a cell untill the contempt of court was recinded then no other council would behave in the same way.

Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-22993060

 

Disgraceful behaviour by Newham council. They've been caught out using illegal cameras but are refusing to refund drivers who have paid their tickets already.

Is it possible to take a council to Small Claims court I wonder? (Haven't been caught out like this myself, just voicing the question)

 

The 'drivers' may not have paid the tickets since the owner is liable. Whilst I don't condone their stance the PCN was for contravening a traffic regulation which has not been shown to be invalid. The cameras were not certified (12 not ALL the 169 cameras) at the time and the owner could have appealed on those grounds but they didn't. The actual contravention has taken place and the keeper has paid up there is no question that any of those penalised are 'innocent'. If I lived in Newham I'd be angrier that they had failed in their duty to correctly enforce and allowed 'guilty' persons the opportunity to escape the consequences rather than the fact they are not wasting public money tracking down those that had paid.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The actual contravention has taken place ....

 

You can't say that, the cameras in question did not have a current calibration certificate, so could have been wildly inaccurate with their recording. No contravention has taken place without proof and these cameras were not proof.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You can't say that, the cameras in question did not have a current calibration certificate, so could have been wildly inaccurate with their recording. No contravention has taken place without proof and these cameras were not proof.

 

Parking CCTV cameras do not get calibrated they are just approved for the purpose. The location, time, contravention etc. is recorded by the operator there is no physical way a camera can make a car appear parked in contravention when it is not.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A split on words. If the council wishes to continually rip people off with legislation on their side, then they need to do it with legal equipment, equipment that has been approved for the job. These cameras were not approved, so as far as legislation is concerned, these so called offences did not take place.

 

The council in question would have known or should have known that they had purchased and installed cameras that were not approved and have used them in a fraudulent manner to extract money from the public.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A split on words. If the council wishes to continually rip people off with legislation on their side, then they need to do it with legal equipment, equipment that has been approved for the job. These cameras were not approved, so as far as legislation is concerned, these so called offences did not take place.

 

The council in question would have known or should have known that they had purchased and installed cameras that were not approved and have used them in a fraudulent manner to extract money from the public.

 

I think you mean as far as issuing a penalty charge the offences didn't take place, the legislation that determines if a contravention takes place is a traffic order which has nothing to do with cameras.

I guess if you think giving people a penalty for breaking road traffic regulations is ripping people off you may have a point but personally I'd rather people adhered to the law rather than just decide which laws apply to them and which ones do not. If someone burgled your house and got off because the Police had no authority to use the cctv evidence used to convict would you see it as a victory for the public?

The Council had not been using the cameras directly it was an error by their contractor which when it came to light they carried out this audit. There is not even any proof that the cameras are not of the correct quality to be approved just that they had not gone through the process to certify them. Its a stupid mistake for which someone within the organisation should be made liable but I don't see why they should waste public money refunding those that have accepted they parked in contravention.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It matters not whose error it was, ultimately the fault lies with the council. It's a petty error agreed, but if they wish to enforce these civil rules, then they must also obey them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...