Thurrock Council.....Whyte & Co and serious concerns about enforcement of 'historic' parking tickets !!

[tomtubby]

On 28th May I read an article in SCOOP that at first glance appeared to be rather unimportant. I was wrong. On closer reading, the news article is of serious concern for a variety of reasons.

 

The link is below and in brief, concerns 2,500 letters that were sent to debtors by the enforcement company; Whyte & Co. Crucially, the letters were sent to the debtors in the week before the 'run up to the local and European elections. (more on this further on).

 

One resident complained to the newspaper that the letter arrived on 21st May to advise that the debt had to be paid by the day before (20th May). The letter also 'helpfully' enclosed details of a parking fine 'surgery' that Thurrock Council had hosted a few days earlier.

 

If this was not serious enough....the debt to which the letter referred to was a parking ticket issued by Thurrock Council three years earlier (June 2011) !!!

 

As many regular viewers will know, Whyte & Co were the enforcement company featured so unfavourably by the recent TV series: PARKING MAD. The program exposed the way in which Whyte & Co operate 'Roadside Operations' with the assistance of the police using ANPR equipped vehicles.

 

As the TV programmes confirmed, Whyte & Co were NOT seeking to locate the debtor by using their ANPR equipped vehicles. Instead, they were seeking to find (with the assistance of police) the VEHICLE that had been driven by the debtor on the date of the alleged parking contravention !!!

 

Accordingly, if Thurrock Council is contracting with Whyte & Co to retrieve such historic debts are they also allowing them to use ANPR equipped vehicles to assist with their enforcement?

 

 

http://www.yourthurrock.com/2014/05/28/vote-winner-thousands-received-bailiff-letters-in-election-week-in-thurrock/

[tomtubby]

As mentioned above the Whyte & Co letters were sent to debtors during the last week of May (being the period in the run up to the local and European elections.

 

The timing of the letters is against the strict 'PURDAH' Guidelines which start 6 weeks before a Scheduled election and serious questions have now been raised by the shadow portfolio holder questioning why such letters were sanctioned to be sent so close to the election.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purdah_%28pre-election_period%29

[brassnecked]

This is wrong on so many levels, there is a good chance that the vehicles are with different owners, and if ANPR is being used it doesn't bear thinking about the consequences. There is a good chance that Whyte & Co may try to force the new owner to pay up, or even push for interpleader under the new rules.

 

Are Thurrock Council harbouring a death wish at the next council elections, or are the officers out of control?

[unclebulgaria67]

As mentioned above the Whyte & Co letters were sent to debtors during the last week of May (being the period in the run up to the local and European elections.

 

The timing of the letters is against the strict 'PURDAH' Guidelines which start 6 weeks before a Scheduled election and serious questions have now been raised by the shadow portfolio holder questioning why such letters were sanctioned to be sent so close to the election.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purdah_%28pre-election_period%29

 

I don't think this would touch on the purdah rules, as the letters were about unpaid parking tickets and not anything that would be considered party political. It would part of the councils normal work. Plus many of the people contacted may not even live in the area any more, given that the tickets were 3 years old.

[tomtubby]

I don't think this would touch on the purdah rules.

QUOTE]

.

 

 

Not according to Mr Barry Johnson the Conservative Councillor for Thurrock Council !!!

 

In a public sector publication released online today Councillor Johnson states as follows:

 

"As the shadow portfolio holder for central services, I knew nothing about these letters.

 

Why did the administration sanction this so close to an election? If it is a new initiative then surely it goes against the rules of Purdah to initiate it at this time.

 

But if it were a real attempt by the Labour administration to find alternative ways of payment without incurring further costs, then why were the opposition councillors not informed.....we could have advertised it at our surgeries"

 

I am sure council leader John Kent was delighted that thousands of voters may have received letters from debt collectors on the week of the elections"

[tomtubby]

If the above is not bad enough the following is:

 

In the same public sector publication a spokesperson for Thurrock Council is quoted as saying the following:

 

"Motorists with historic outstanding parking fines from Thurrock Council were invited to a special surgery at the Civic Offices in Grays to find ways of paying the debts without incurring further charges"

 

"The next step in the process for tickets issued before 1st April 2013 and still not paid would otherwise be enforcement action, which could involve extra costs such as £75 for Compliance, £235 for calling and taking control of goods, and £110 for removal"

 

Has this 'spokesperson' actually read the 'transitional' regulations ???

[ploddertom]

 

Has this 'spokesperson' actually read the 'transitional' regulations ???

 

 

Probably not & will be spouting what they have been furnished with by Whyte & Co - thus confirming neither know the rules.

[tomtubby]

If Thurrock Council believe that a 'Compliance Fee' of £75 may be charged then questions really do need to be raised !!

 

Also, what date were this 'historic' debts registered at TEC?

 

What date are the warrants?

 

Have the warrants expired?

[unclebulgaria67]

I don't think this would touch on the purdah rules.

QUOTE]

Not according to Mr Barry Johnson the Conservative Councillor for Thurrock Council !!!

 

In a public sector publication released online today Councillor Johnson states as follows:

 

"As the shadow portfolio holder for central services, I knew nothing about these letters.

 

Why did the administration sanction this so close to an election? If it is a new initiative then surely it goes against the rules of Purdah to initiate it at this time.

 

I think Barry is wrong. It is up to the relevant council department how they organise such things and there would be no requirement to advise opposition party councillors of this. The current Labour controlled council are hardly likely to receive any votes from such an initiative, as the only people who would have known about it, would be the 2500 people who received the letters. I don't think there was any expenditure advertising the initiative from what I have read. If the council had done articles in the local newspaper about how they were chasing up parking fines with a new initiative, I would agree that this would be a purdah issue.

 

I am sensing that some Tories on Thurrock council are making this a political issue, in the hoping of gaining a few votes in the run up to the May 2015 election. In truth if the Tories were running Thurrock they would be chasing up parking tickets using various methods.

[brassnecked]

Whatevedr the politics, Whyte & Co appear to be a loose cannon, and bringing their own interpretation to the rules.

[HCEOs]

Funny how the Director who featured on the Parking Mad programme was quite willing to slag off their competition for the possible misuse of the new regulations in an article (which tomotubby highlighted on this forum some time ago) and here he is doing the same....

[brassnecked]

Funny how the Director who featured on the Parking Mad programme was quite willing to slag off their competition for the possible misuse of the new regulations in an article (which tomotubby highlighted on this forum some time ago) and here he is doing the same....

 

Kettles & Pots HCEOs either way if they are being naughty they need a figurative slap.

[tomtubby]

 

Funny how the Director who featured on the Parking Mad programme was quite willing to slag off their competition for the possible misuse of the new regulations in an article (which tomotubby highlighted on this forum some time ago) and here he is doing the same....

 

 

I completely forgot about that article !!!

 

Yesterday I visited the PARKEX exhibition at Olympia. Although transport related a lot of bailiff companies had their own stand or attended as visitors. Whyte & Co were one of the companies with a stand and I had the opportunity of speaking personally with the Director and I was surprised to hear that he was pleased with over 85% of the content of the Parking Mad episodes.

[brassnecked]

I completely forgot about that article !!!

 

Yesterday I visited the PARKEX exhibition at Olympia. Although transport related a lot of bailiff companies had their own stand or attended as visitors. Whyte & Co were one of the companies with a stand and I had the opportunity of speaking personally with the Director and I was surprised to hear that he was pleased with over 85% of the content of the Parking Mad episodes.

 

Says it all then, did you let him know that other people were not so happy with their actions?

[tomtubby]

With the Metropolitan Police confirming that they have suspended their involvement with bailiffs in "Roadside Operations" I think that it will not be long before many other 'changes' are made. Trying to enforce 2011 parking tickets and thinking that a charge of £75 can be applied should be one novel idea that gets stopped right now.

[brassnecked]

With the Metropolitan Police confirming that they have suspended their involvement with bailiffs in "Roadside Operations" I think that it will not be long before many other 'changes' are made. Trying to enforce 2011 parking tickets and thinking that a charge of £75 can be applied should be one novel idea that gets stopped right now.

 

They will argue that they had no levy prior to April 6th so the new rules apply or some other obfuscation or interpretation they claims allows it.

 

In reality the clock is ticking and they are ignoring the signs.

[tomtubby]

What needs to be taken into consideration is that the new regulations took such a long time to come into effect given that the previous government pledged that the new rules would ONLY be implemented when a suitable regulatory body was in place. A separate Stakeholder group was set up to explore how such a complaints regime could work. The members consisted mainly of representative from the enforcement industry and the government made the point VERY clear that the new regulatory body would NOT receive any funding from the government.

 

In a nutshell, the only suitable proposal that the Stakeholder group could come up with was the BPA (British Parking Association) run complaints body. The Government sought the views of the public in the Consultation Paper on Bailiff Reform and thankfully, most responded to indicate that they would NOT support the BPA. My response to the Consultation paper consisted of approx 30 pages and I made the point VERY CLEAR that the BPA should be dismissed as a non starter.

 

Following the Consultation process, the "enforcement industry" continued to explore setting up a Complaints/Regulatory body but failed.The government could not hold off the new regulations any longer and we now have new regulations but NO regulatory body.

 

HOWEVER, the government is closely looking to see how the new regs are working and all Stakeholder groups (mine included) are being urged to inform MOJ of any concerns that we have. A special email address has even been provided. The enforcement companies KNOW that they are now 'under the spotlight'.

 

They now have to PROVE to the government that 'self regulation' will work. The next few months will be interesting.

[brassnecked]

Self regulation of EAs is a complete nonsense.