£300,000 in Glasgow Parking fines 'wiped'

[buzby]

Glasgow District Council has announced they will cancel all parking tickets that were used between early 2006 and November of the same year - but only if they remained unpaid. No refunds will be given for those tickets that were settled.

 

Glasgow's decision follows that of Edinburgh which earlier this year cancelled some £6.5m tickets, and Aberdeen is expected to cancel almost £2.1m in fines shortly. Of the 11,000 PCN's issued by Glasgow, over 700 were paid.

 

The cause of the cancellation follows the English High Court ruling following a challenge over the parking charge notice issued by Barnet Council (PCN) not showing the date of the notice AND the date of the offence (the former being required to calculate the cut-off date for the discounted fine).

 

The Scottish Parking Appeals Service adjudicator, Peter Royds said in view of the High Court ruling in England, he would uphold all appeals from Scottish motorists if their PCNs did not include both dates.

[patdavies]

Since the Barnet decision has been settled case law for some time now, somebody should clearly be seriously challenging the competence of these Councils who relentlessly continue to enforce PCNs that are legally null and void.

[buzby]

Perhaps, but there was no legal precedent in Scotland. It was only the Scottish Parking Appeals bod to declared (off his own bat) that he would accept this as a legitimate challenge - as in itself it is not legally binding here, with no blame attached to the Councils. I'm told this is the reason why those that paid cannot seek automatic repayment of the fines already remitted.

[dw190]

Perhaps, but there was no legal precedent in Scotland. It was only the Scottish Parking Appeals bod to declared (off his own bat) that he would accept this as a legitimate challenge - as in itself it is not legally binding here, with no blame attached to the Councils. I'm told this is the reason why those that paid cannot seek automatic repayment of the fines already remitted.

 

I think the main reason is that SPAS will have had their cut of the Penalties that have been paid and would prefer not to have to refund the Councils.

[buzby]

Hadn't though of that!

[donaldtramp]

Quote:

Originally Posted by buzby

Perhaps, but there was no legal precedent in Scotland. It was only the Scottish Parking Appeals bod to declared (off his own bat) that he would accept this as a legitimate challenge - as in itself it is not legally binding here, with no blame attached to the Councils. I'm told this is the reason why those that paid cannot seek automatic repayment of the fines already remitted.

 

I think the main reason is that SPAS will have had their cut of the Penalties that have been paid and would prefer not to have to refund the Councils.

 

A High Court judge is a considered enough of an authority that the Adjudicator must take note of is comments. After all the Road traffic Act is the same in England and Scotland.

 

SPAS adjudicators have no authority to tell Councils what to do. They can only decide on individual cases.

 

As for the automatic repayment of fines, that won't happen.

You will have to take them to the small claims court in Scotland, following the same procedure as reclaiming bank charges. i can see no reason why this would not be successful.

[buzby]

The RTA is NOT the same in both jurisdictions, as you'll see if you look at the act itself. Where it differs to comply with the laws of Scotland or NI it is noted and separate wording provided.

 

The only High Court judge that plays any relevant part in an adjudication is a Scottish one. IT is no more an authority is Scottish actions that that of any other foreign administration. Since the legal system is completely different, there is no rubber stamp of the type you appear to be implying.

 

As to SPAS, I do not think I suggested they had any global authority. The commissioner held he was upholding an appeal against the council based on the English ruling, it was the Councils of Edinburgh, Glasgow and probably Aberdeen who have decided not to proceed and forego the enforcement and fine revenue.

 

I'm not sure where you got the automatic repayment of fines from - my post referred to only the cancellation. No provision has been made for those who paid to be refunded. For those who DID pay and are seeking reimbursement, I'm sure the Council would refund based on the correct paperwork, but whether either would be successful without this is debatable.

[donaldtramp]

For once Buzby you might have to listen to me on this one.....

 

I was the one who took this case to adjudication and I was the one who broke the story to the papers.

 

The RTA is NOT the same in both jurisdictions, as you'll see if you look at the act itself.

The RTA is EXACTLY the same with regards to this point of law that I brought up. The Road Traffic Act Section 66C(The part that specifies a date of issue must be on the ticket) is EXACTLY the same regardless of which part of Britain you stay in.

 

The only High Court judge that plays any relevant part in an adjudication is a Scottish one. IT is no more an authority is Scottish actions that that of any other foreign administration. Since the legal system is completely different, there is no rubber stamp of the type you appear to be implying.

You are wrong in your thoughts. The adjudicator stated that an English High Court judge is "competant authority" and that he had to take this into consideration. This is similar in a lot of legal cases. When I get home from work I can quote the written adjudication to you.

 

The commissioner held he was upholding an appeal against the council based on the English ruling, it was the Councils of Edinburgh, Glasgow and probably Aberdeen who have decided not to proceed and forego the enforcement and fine revenue.

Firstly it is not a commisioner he was an SPAS "adjudicator".

The Council in question was Aberdeen and they have decided not to proceed because all of these tickets were issued ILLEGALLY. They did not conform to the RTA and could not justify chasing them. Once the story broke the Council could be taken to the Council ombudsman for malfeance if they were to chase these tickets any further.

 

I'm not sure where you got the automatic repayment of fines from - my post referred to only the cancellation.

Your previous post;

 

It was only the Scottish Parking Appeals bod to declared (off his own bat) that he would accept this as a legitimate challenge - as in itself it is not legally binding here, with no blame attached to the Councils. I'm told this is the reason why those that paid cannot seek automatic repayment of the fines already remitted.

Incorrect. The parking bod did not declare that this was not legally binding here. (I can quote the written decision when I get home) It was a lawyer the newspaper (Press and Jounal if you would like to check it out)consulted with no parking law knowledge.

 

No provision has been made for those who paid to be refunded. For those who DID pay and are seeking reimbursement, I'm sure the Council would refund based on the correct paperwork, but whether either would be successful without this is debatable.

The reclaimation of parking money paid could be successful. Getting "the correct paperwork" is simplicity itself. (I have got my paperwork.) It is a simple Freedom of information request. The Council can then be taken to small claims court if you so wished.

 

 

I'm sorry but this really wound me up. Folk having their tuppence worth when they have little or no knowledge of the case in question or the case law.

Edited March 22, 2009 by donaldtramp

[green_and_mean]

Surely by paying you agree the contravention took place and the PCN was issued correctly? Isn't it the same as when you plead guilty in criminal law you can't then later appeal due to your arrest not being correct etc you should have pleaded not guilty at the time or in the case of a PCN appealed?

If claiming money back is legally correct then surely every point of law the adjudicator makes every previous PCN would be cancelled? If lets say the adjudicator rules a PCN invalid due to no T bar on a SYL every previous SYL PCN could make a retrospective appeal even though they didn't bother questioning this point of law at the time?

[buzby]

The RTA is EXACTLY the same with regards to this point of law that I brought up.

 

Not wishing to labour the point, you stated the RTA was the same across England & Scotland, I simply pointed out that it wasn't. Subsequently modifying your claim to say you only meant that small section of the act relevant to the point of law you were discussing is noted, even accepted however the RTA is clearly not the same in both jurisdictions and this is a valid observation I'm sure you will agree with.

 

You are wrong in your thoughts. The adjudicator stated that an English High Court judge is "competent authority" and that he had to take this into consideration. This is similar in a lot of legal cases. When I get home from work I can quote the written adjudication to you.

 

The Adjudicator was of the 'opinion' that the English HCJ was a 'competent authority' AIUI this view was open to challenge, however there was no precedent involved here, it was 'considered' as part of his decision-making process. If this is similar to other cases, then I fail to see the problem. The point I was exploring was that the Adjudicator was obliged to rubber stamp the issue because the EHCJ ruled this way.

 

The Council in question was Aberdeen and they have decided not to proceed because all of these tickets were issued ILLEGALLY.

 

This is the bit that interest me as I have not been able to find any ruling that states that the issuing of these tickets in themselves was 'illegal' There wasn't even a legal challenge in the Scottish Courts (as far as I've been able to ascertain) because the issue never came up there.

 

Incorrect. The parking bod did not declare that this was not legally binding here. (I can quote the written decision when I get home) It was a lawyer the newspaper (Press and Jounal if you would like to check it out)consulted with no parking law knowledge.

 

Tautology - I lost the thrust after the second not. So he did declare it WAS legally binding?

 

The reclaimation of parking money paid could be successful. Getting "the correct paperwork" is simplicity itself. (I have got my paperwork.) It is a simple Freedom of information request. The Council can then be taken to small claims court if you so wished.

 

I'm delighted it worked for you. I paid a fine for parking in a GDC public car park, and the offence was for not displaying a valid ticket. There was one, but I had a lot to do so I paid it. Some 8 months later I looked at the paperwork to discover the registration number was not my own - someone had placed the ticket on my vehicle. I went to GDC to seek repayment and was told the records were only kept for 6 months, nothing more could be done. (Freedom of Information Act or no FoI).

 

I'm sorry but this really wound me up. Folk having their tuppence worth when they have little or no knowledge of the case in question or the case law.

 

Relax. It's a Forum, that's what tuppences are all about. I had no issue about the case in question (which I only posted as general interest), it was the bigger picture that concerned me - an EHCR supposedly being used in Scotland to create a precedent that had not been heard in the Scottish Courts. My post also concerned what MY local council was doing (Glasgow) and what Edinburgh had done. - As evidenced by the subject line of the post. Aberdeen's problems and what was said in the P&J were not a consideration, but I'm glad you gave them a run for their money!

[donaldtramp]

Relax. It's a Forum, that's what tuppences are all about. I had no issue about the case in question (which I only posted as general interest), it was the bigger picture that concerned me - an EHCR supposedly being used in Scotland to create a precedent that had not been heard in the Scottish Courts. My post also concerned what MY local council was doing (Glasgow) and what Edinburgh had done. - As evidenced by the subject line of the post. Aberdeen's problems and what was said in the P&J were not a consideration, but I'm glad you gave them a run for their money!

 

Relaxed:p.!!

 

I spent months bringing this case together to fight the Councils.

I did bring the journo's attention to Aberdeen, Glasgow Dundee etc after winning my case and reading this article;

 

The Scotsman - 200,000 drivers defy parking fines, leaving cities £14m out of pocket

 

So if you read this as I do, Glasgow have actually shirked their responsibilities by only cancelling 300, 000 pounds worth they should actually be cancelling nearly £6 MILLion pounds worth!!!

 

The Adjudicator was of the 'opinion' that the English HCJ was a 'competent authority' AIUI this view was open to challenge, however there was no precedent involved here, it was 'considered' as part of his decision-making process. If this is similar to other cases, then I fail to see the problem. The point I was exploring was that the Adjudicator was obliged to rubber stamp the issue because the EHCJ ruled this way.

 

The adjudicator in this case is acting as a judge in this instance. He was not obliged to rubber stamp it but he had to pay his dues to a High Court judge whatever part of Britain that was in.

 

This is the bit that interest me as I have not been able to find any ruling that states that the issuing of these tickets in themselves was 'illegal' There wasn't even a legal challenge in the Scottish Courts (as far as I've been able to ascertain) because the issue never came up there.

 

There has been no legal challenge as the Councils would have to challenge it in court. They do not have a hope with the previous decision, therefore they haven't pursued. There is no need for a separate Scottish ruling.

it was the bigger picture that concerned me

 

My thoughts exactly when I chose to take them on;)

I fail to see why Councils should be allowed to merrily go about raising revenue from parking by penalising motorists to fill their coffers.

 

Buzby,I thought you might be interested in the difference between the 300k refunded and the almost 6 million I think they should cancel.:o Just as Edinburgh did. Working on this now;).....

 

Green and Mean....

 

To answer your question the money cancelled was from non collected tickets.(see the article above)

 

There are discussions going on about how to deal with reclaiming paid tickets and the legalities. A case would have to be made up and decided at a small claims court and to tell you the truth it probably isn't worth the time investment for most people. I agree that by paying a ticket you have admitted liability but there are ways and means the guys over at Pepipoo are trying out...

 

All the best

DT

[green_and_mean]

I fail to see why Councils should be allowed to merrily go about raising revenue from parking by penalising motorists to fill their coffers.

 

DT

 

Because its the Law? You have not challenged the right of Councils right to enforce parking simply cost the Council a lot of Public money and made them re-write the PCN. Most Parking offences/contraventions have been in place prior to decriminalisation and have been subject to fines so nothing has really changed. The main reason parking was decriminalised was because Police no longer had the resources to cope with the growing problem of parking not because it was not important quite the opposite.

Whilst I agree parking should be enforced within the law these cases are not really a 'victory' for anyone are they? Parking enforcement is self financing so if all the PCNs for the past year are cancelled where will the money spent on PAs, processing staff, marking out roads etc come from? It will come from the Public in general not just those with PCNs and an increase in parking charges next year to cover the deficit.

I am not disputing your right to challenge the PCNs legallity but these cases are not exactly a victory since the Council has not lost anything.

It is the same with bay markings 99.9% of the public would not know or care if a bay had single or double lines at the end. A bay is a bay at the end of the day, you park in one then check the signs. It may be very clever to point out the difference in the TRSGD to get off a PCN and get your name in the local paper but who pays to get them all changed...at the end of the day you do.

[Rob S]

The councils also have to comply with the law, which means they have to get it right with regards to the PCN's and all the road signs and markings have to be legally compliant. If they do not comply then there is no contravention. It's not exactly rocket science. Instead of directing your anger towards forum members who have discovered this and had PCN's cancelled, why not direct it towards the local authorities themselves who have cocked up.

[patdavies]

 

It is the same with bay markings 99.9% of the public would not know or care if a bay had single or double lines at the end. A bay is a bay at the end of the day, you park in one then check the signs. It may be very clever to point out the difference in the TRSGD to get off a PCN and get your name in the local paper but who pays to get them all changed...at the end of the day you do.

 

So when a motorist parks a few inches outside a bay, with one wheel on the SYL, that's near enough and will not attract a PCN - it's exactly the same argument.

 

Your cost argument is weak. Imagine a situation where no motorist ever parked in contravention - the council concerned would still need to pay for PAs, back office staff, maintenance of lines and signage, etc. with NO income from PCNs. Parking enforcement is not meant to be a revenue stream for Councils, despite many treating it as a cash cow.

[patdavies]

Surely by paying you agree the contravention took place and the PCN was issued correctly? Isn't it the same as when you plead guilty in criminal law you can't then later appeal due to your arrest not being correct etc you should have pleaded not guilty at the time or in the case of a PCN appealed?

If claiming money back is legally correct then surely every point of law the adjudicator makes every previous PCN would be cancelled? If lets say the adjudicator rules a PCN invalid due to no T bar on a SYL every previous SYL PCN could make a retrospective appeal even though they didn't bother questioning this point of law at the time?

 

If somebody presented you with an invoice and you paid it thinking it to be correct; if it later turned out that the invoice was not correct, would you not seek any over-payment?

 

Once a PCN was declared by the High Court to be a 'nullity' then it follows that all previous similar PCNs are also a nullity and therefore void.

 

You cannot simply reclaim repayment of the PCN - as you say, by paying you have accepted it. However, you can claim restitution for being induced to make a payment on the basis that the demand was subsequently found to be void and false.

 

In fact, your example in criminal law is also incorrect - you can appeal when new evidence comes to light (like a PCN later being discovered to be void).

 

There have been speeding cases where even those who paid up on the fixed penalty have reclaimed their fine and points when a subsequent case found the limit to be unenforceable. (for an example of this, google Folly Bottom)

[buzby]

So if you read this as I do, Glasgow have actually shirked their responsibilities by only cancelling 300, 000 pounds worth they should actually be cancelling nearly £6 MILLion pounds worth!!!

 

I do - and I remain incredulous that there has not been a bigger issue made of this. I spoke with some journalist pals and the consensus was (after weeding through the usual responses from GDC) was there was no inherent obligation (their words) that required them to make repayment because of a technicality, as in every other respect the issuance was 'legal'. I cannot believe the folk down here are so forgiving of their Council and unwilling to force a challenge. I'm sure it's got nothing to do with deference, more their thought that they'll find a loophole to permit retention of the funds!

[donaldtramp]

Because its the Law? You have not challenged the right of Councils right to enforce parking simply cost the Council a lot of Public money and made them re-write the PCN. Most Parking offences/contraventions have been in place prior to decriminalisation and have been subject to fines so nothing has really changed. The main reason parking was decriminalised was because Police no longer had the resources to cope with the growing problem of parking not because it was not important quite the opposite.

 

"Because its the law?" Ha! The law is a 2 way street and it is there to protect the motorist as well. I was using the law(A High Court no less) to stand up for motorists.

 

Whilst I agree parking should be enforced within the law these cases are not really a 'victory' for anyone are they? Parking enforcement is self financing so if all the PCNs for the past year are cancelled where will the money spent on PAs, processing staff, marking out roads etc come from? It will come from the Public in general not just those with PCNs and an increase in parking charges next year to cover the deficit.

 

The Road Traffic Act was NOT set up to generate money for Councils to spend. It was set up to set out the rules of the road and in the case of parking to keep traffic flowing.

Councils have been told time and time again not to treat traffic tickets as a revenue stream.

 

Rob S says;

 

Instead of directing your anger towards forum members who have discovered this and had PCN's cancelled, why not direct it towards the local authorities themselves who have cocked up.

Couldn't agree more. Councils are useless money pits protected by unions who wouldn't be out of place in the 1970s. They get 3 weeks a year sick leave, job for life and a cast iron final salary pension. All of this paid for from your taxes. Almost a third of people in this country are employed by the public sector with benefits the private sector would give a left arm for. This makes the Council lazy and full of wasters that just turn up take their pay slip cos it's easy and switch their brain off at work. Why do you think the taxpayer is getting squeezed on all sides?

Why do you think they need to find other sources of income to pay for this?

I think you need to look at the big picture and realise that you need to take a look at the Councils, the structure of the public sector and their mismanagment.

 

these cases are not exactly a victory since the Council has not lost anything.

 

Oh how wrong you are! These wins are a massive victory for the motorist who is becoming tired of being a cash machine on 4 wheels for the council.

 

And there are more victories on the way;) .....

[donaldtramp]

I do - and I remain incredulous that there has not been a bigger issue made of this. I spoke with some journalist pals and the consensus was (after weeding through the usual responses from GDC) was there was no inherent obligation (their words) that required them to make repayment because of a technicality, as in every other respect the issuance was 'legal'. I cannot believe the folk down here are so forgiving of their Council and unwilling to force a challenge. I'm sure it's got nothing to do with deference, more their thought that they'll find a loophole to permit retention of the funds!

 

But the key thing here is that the Council is NOT making a repayment. This is money outstanding that they are still chasing:evil: . They can't do this. How can Glasgow follow the law differently from Edinburgh???

Put that to you journalists and see what they think. I can post you up a newspaper article to back this up if you want?

 

All the best

DT

[green_and_mean]

The councils also have to comply with the law, which means they have to get it right with regards to the PCN's and all the road signs and markings have to be legally compliant. If they do not comply then there is no contravention. It's not exactly rocket science. Instead of directing your anger towards forum members who have discovered this and had PCN's cancelled, why not direct it towards the local authorities themselves who have cocked up.

 

I was not directing anger at anyone I said the challenge on the PCN was valid just pointing out that nothing really has been achieved except the Council is a few quid poorer. I agree that signs have to be legal and if I see incorrect signage I inform the council, the same as I do if I see faulty street lighting or paving. However in this case the issue about whether the vehicle was in contravention or not was not relevant it was the wording on the PCN that was questioned not the contravention. My point was that the Council is a public body providing services to local people not a profit making company. Allowing every ticket to be cancelled even if the motorist was clearly in contravention due to a legal technicality is a rather hollow victory. The wording on the PCN could not have been seen until after the drivers parked in contravention so had no bearing on where they parked unlike poor or incorrect signage. The Council was acting in good faith following common practice until this format of PCN was challenged it was considered legal. This was just an incorrect interpretation of the Law by the Councils involved no one can possibly claim that it was done to deceive or any other underhand reason.

[green_and_mean]

So when a motorist parks a few inches outside a bay, with one wheel on the SYL, that's near enough and will not attract a PCN - it's exactly the same argument.

 

Your cost argument is weak. Imagine a situation where no motorist ever parked in contravention - the council concerned would still need to pay for PAs, back office staff, maintenance of lines and signage, etc. with NO income from PCNs. Parking enforcement is not meant to be a revenue stream for Councils, despite many treating it as a cash cow.

 

Studies have shown motorists weigh up the risk of parking in contravention with the cost of the PCN and risk of getting caught. It is therefore a never ending circle less people parking illegally means less patrols, less wardens are seen means more people will risk parking illegally creating a need for more wardens again. That is why you see more people parked in contravention in the eve for example because they think no one will be enforcing.

In a perfect world with no contraventions for 'bad/illegal' parking PAs etc would be paid out of funds gained from permits, parking fees and PCNs for overstaying and not paying.

The simplest way to put a stop to Councils getting the money is to park properly then there is very little chance of getting a PCN. I admit everyone makes honest mistakes but considering how many PCNs get issued thats a LOT of mistakes, the mistake most people make is in thinking they won't get caught.

[green_and_mean]

Couldn't agree more. Councils are useless money pits protected by unions who wouldn't be out of place in the 1970s. They get 3 weeks a year sick leave, job for life and a cast iron final salary pension. All of this paid for from your taxes. Almost a third of people in this country are employed by the public sector with benefits the private sector would give a left arm for. This makes the Council lazy and full of wasters that just turn up take their pay slip cos it's easy and switch their brain off at work. Why do you think the taxpayer is getting squeezed on all sides?

Why do you think they need to find other sources of income to pay for this?

I think you need to look at the big picture and realise that you need to take a look at the Councils, the structure of the public sector and their mismanagment.

 

I think you'll find a vast majority of Councils sub contract parking with staff having none of the benefits you talk about. Just because someone gets sick pay, has a right to join a union and contributes to a pension that will be sufficient to live on when they retire you think this is a reason to attack them? You must have a huge chip on your shoulder these are basic rights everyone should have at work not something to complain about, if they are so good I suggest you change careers rather than just moan about how well off they are. It is this effort to make Councils more cost effective that has led to Parking being farmed out to profit making companies such as NCP who at the same time get the most complaints, it seems like a classic case of wanting your cake and eating it to.

[donaldtramp]

I think you'll find a vast majority of Councils sub contract parking with staff having none of the benefits you talk about. Just because someone gets sick pay, has a right to join a union and contributes to a pension that will be sufficient to live on when they retire you think this is a reason to attack them? You must have a huge chip on your shoulder these are basic rights everyone should have at work not something to complain about, if they are so good I suggest you change careers rather than just moan about how well off they are.

 

I am talking about the Council staff in general's benefits not the traffic wardens. No private industry would survive if their staff took 3 weeks off every year on "sickies". My girlfriend used to work for the Council but she left as the unions were strangling the place and squandering money left right and centre.

 

contributes to a pension

 

No, I'll think you'll find that's my tax that is funding their retirement. THATS what gets me.

 

Trust me I'm not moaning about how well off people in the Council are. It's their waste of MY tax that gets me. I work in the private sector and am sick of the way this government has encouraged the growth in Public sector jobs and associated wage costs. 1 in every 3 people in this country is in public payroll. That's simply crazy.

 

Roll on the public sector pay freezes that Gordon Brown has finally realised is necessary and is implementing. If he hadn't employed so many folk in the first place the country wouldn't be in the state it's in today...

 

DT

[green_and_mean]

I work for the Council and have not had a day off sick in over a year! Its not compulsory to be off sick you just get paid if you are which used to be the case in most jobs until recently. The last two private sector companies I worked for also paid sick pay for several weeks at full pay so it's not uncommon.

I contribute almost £200 a month to my pension so will not feel at all guilty when I retire about getting my pension payments.

I find it hard to believe 1 in 3 are paid by Councils or Central govt they may be employed in public service but are probably contractors.

It is hard to name one public service outside of the police that is not contracted out these days which puts most of these workers technically in the private sector.

[donaldtramp]

I work for the Council and have not had a day off sick in over a year! Its not compulsory to be off sick you just get paid if you are which used to be the case in most jobs until recently. The last two private sector companies I worked for also paid sick pay for several weeks at full pay so it's not uncommon.

 

You are one of the few not taking sick days then...

 

A single google search provided:

 

icBirmingham - Council staff off sick 'for a month'

 

Edinburgh Evening News - City vow to get tough as staff average 12 days off sick a year

 

6m Sickie Cost (from York Press)

 

Private sector employers provide sick pay for several weeks I agree. But private sector staff do not take the pi$$ like public sector folk do. I mean the birmingham link with each person averaging a MONTH off. Sorry but you cannot argue against that.

 

I do not argue with the money you pay to a pension but my girlfriends pension was a guaranteed final salary. She paid in a small amount and was guaranteed a final salary, there is NO such luxury in the private sector. My pension is invested at the whims of the stock market, not paid from Council tax. That is my tax!

[green_and_mean]

I'm not trying to defend the sickness figures but it only takes a few people to be off on long term sick leave to bump the average up it is after all the total number of employees divided by days off not what each person takes off.

I fit my 35 hrs into 4 days a week so combined with 23 days leave and Bank holidays off, if I was off sick a month I'd never get any work done!