Parking Criminals

[maureenandtom]

Fake Britain – Tomorrow evening, Monday 11th July, BBC1

7.30pm Fake Britain – Consumer series. Tonight, police tackle criminals fabricating parking offences to fleece the public.

I saw this and I was amused. Right, I thought, I hope they start with the councils.

And then, I thought, what if a council fabricates a parking offence? As councils do. We know this. It is difficult to know when a council actually has powers it claims to have without actually defying them to do their worst and prove their power in court. If a council says on a notice, "commit this parking offence and it will cost you £50 but only £25 if you pay within seven days."

If it doesn't truly have that power, does it commit a crime? I've often said, tongue in cheek, that councils are fraudulent if they make an unjustified claim. Are they? Is such fraud a crime?

I'll be watching.

 

[vwalan]

hi. in my speeding case the authorities had to pay back millions of pounds . note i say payback. wrongfully took stolen ,theft in my eyes . nobody lost their job the council/police/camera partnership/highways never got fined . i could have been heavily fined if i lost.
it was said it was a small mistake by the authorities in naming the street wrong . and putting the wrong sign up. they have a book full of traffic signs telling them about every thing. we make a small mistake just a few miles too quick . well punishment will be dealt out here you speeder endangering lives etc. its all one sided if you let them get away with it.
i should be in charge ... if you dont do as i say i shall punish you . that seems much fairer to me. i shall do as i want.
isnt that called dictatorship. do we live in a dictatorship? i think we do.

 

[vwalan]

many uk areas let you go on a speecding awreness course . you get a charge or fee to pay ,but no points and no fine. i have a nice certificate as well. shant get away with it again i dont think . twice hee hee. i scored top points at the awareness course .they said they couldnt understand i knew all the answers and knew more about the signs etc than the ones doing the course.
i thought about arguing but took the course as it was interseting and i thought if it got to court i could be hung drawn and quartered . if we meet up i,ll show you my certificate . cheers alan.

 

[joncris]

Parking Criminals is it fraud to 'invent' rules

Read This

Fraud Act 2006

 

[Bambi 2]

parking criminals

Fake Britain – Tomorrow evening, Monday 11th July, BBC1

7.30pm Fake Britain – Consumer series. Tonight, police tackle criminals fabricating parking offences to fleece the public.

I saw this and I was amused. Right, I thought, I hope they start with the councils.

And then, I thought, what if a council fabricates a parking offence? As councils do. We know this. It is difficult to know when a council actually has powers it claims to have without actually defying them to do their worst and prove their power in court. If a council says on a notice, "commit this parking offence and it will cost you £50 but only £25 if you pay within seven days."

If it doesn't truly have that power, does it commit a crime? I've often said, tongue in cheek, that councils are fraudulent if they make an unjustified claim. Are they? Is such fraud a crime?

I'll be watching.

My 78 year old sister who lives in Horley Surrey, parked her car last week., paid for her parking ticket and put it in her windscreen, she arrived back at her car 20 minutes later and she had a fine on the screen of £100 or £75 if paid in one week, the parking meter person said they could not see the ticket properly!!!! :mad2: I am so glad I live in rural France

 

[Admin]

The clamper they arrested who drove the red KA (the one that screamed like a girl) used to be the clamper on the church car park at the back of were I work. He did go to prison for the offences.

 

[maureenandtom]

Thank you.

http://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/977180.council_powerless_/

Briefly.

A council wished to deter overnight parking in a particular spot. It made a representation on a notice near the spot that such parking was prohibited on pain of a financial penalty.

The council did not enforce this penalty on at least one occasion and had to admit that it had no powers to impose any penalty.

Is this fraud?

Fraud by false representation
(1)A person is in breach of this section if he—
(a)dishonestly makes a false representation, and
(b)intends, by making the representation—
(i)to make a gain for himself or another, or
(ii)to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss.

(2)A representation is false if—
(a)it is untrue or misleading, and
(b)the person making it knows that it is, or might be, untrue or misleading.

There are councillors here who have told us that this is not fraud; it is perfectly legal for councils to put whatever they want on notices to get their own way. They have told us that what is not legal is for the council to actually attempt to impose the penalty.

Now that I've read the Fraud Act of 2006, I am still certain that this council was fraudulent. It knew it was making a false representation. It said so. The gain was not financial but there was a gain; the council getting its own way. There is nothing about the gain having to be financial.

And there is a loss to others involved. Potentially someone accepting the notice at face value also faces a loss of perhaps paying for parking elsewhere.

Does anybody know if the notice is still there?

 

[John H]

http://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/977180.council_powerless_/

There are a number of points to be made here:

1. It is a fact that Highways Authorities (usually County Councils) have the absolute right through statute to establish parking regulations that refer to height, weight, number of wheels, use and time of day in places for which they are responsible. They can, therefore, ban overnight parking for motorhomes if they so wish.

2. It is also a fact that many Highways Authorities often try to give the impression that they have followed the correct path of action when they have not - primarily because of the duty imposed on them to demonstrate that alternative solutions have been considered and to give cogent reasons for their rejection. Therefore, many of the banning notices you see have no legal back-up (as may be the case in this example).

3. You should always be wary of anything you read in the press - local or national. In this case, the Daily Echo says that the council took over powers under the 2002 regulations. Those regualtions refer primarily to road signage and have nothing to do with establishing parking regulatons. The relevant legislation is in fact the Road Traffic Act of 1991 and its modification through the Traffic Management Act of 2004. If the paper can't get such a basic fact correct then how much of the rest of the report can be relied upon? Newspapers are not famous for letting facts get in the way of a good story. I have been quoted as saying things at meetings I wasn't even at! Be very wary of what you read in the press.

As far as the right of local councils to put up notices as a deterrent is concerned, I have previously said that I am not happy with this but they have a right to do so and it is not necessarily fraud. If a council disapproves of overnight parking on their land or on land for which they are responsible then they are within their rights to say so. What they cannot do, without passing the relevant orders, is to try to impose a fine or other penalty.

Simples - but nonetheless confusing unless you know the system.

 

[AndyC]

The relevant TRO in this case (Poole) does indeed prohibit the use of any vehicle 'For overnight sleeping or camping purposes'.

The problem is that this contravention is not one of those listed in the 'Off Street Contravention Penalty Charge Tariffs' within the TRO.

The effect is that, although a contravention may have occurred, there would seem to be no provision for imposing a penalty charge.

Looks like someone cocked up when drawing up the TRO!

AndyC

 

[vwalan]

nice explanation andy. i think they just dont know how to get them right. as a poster on another forum saysthe authorities are unfit for purpose . get there wages under false pretences . they never seem to get punished for this waste of public funds , its only a small error.
you make an error and they would really like to put you in stocks and flog you.
is the day of reckoning coming. bet the newspapers buck up now how long till authority does the same. cheers alan.

 

[John H]

Hi Andy

Your example demonstrates that cock-up is more common than conspiracy - and in order to prove fraud you have to show intent. It may not be fraud but the person responsible for the mess should be disciplined or even dismissed if necessary. This is one area in which I think the public sector should be more like the private one - it should be a lot easier to get rid of idiots but then there are plenty of those who seem to survive in the private sector too - bankers/editors of the News of the World etc - so maybe things aren't so different in reality.

 

[maureenandtom]

The intent is there. £60 penalty. Cock up? No, not as reported. Intentional.

I'm not sure if the threat of the penalty is enough to prove intent and only becomes intent if actually carried out. But to my mind, it is enough and still fulfills the alternative condition of intending to cause loss.

(b)intends, by making the representation—
(i)to make a gain for himself or another, or
(ii)to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss.

It's still fraud.

 

[John H]

The intent is there. £60 penalty. Cock up? No, not as reported. Intentional.

I'm not sure if the threat of the penalty is enough to prove intent and only becomes intent if actually carried out. But to my mind, it is enough and still fulfills the alternative condition of intending to cause loss.

(b)intends, by making the representation—
(i)to make a gain for himself or another, or
(ii)to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss.

It's still fraud.

You are confusing several things here. I don't know exactly what happened in the Poole case but it seems likely from Andy's post that it could have been as follows:
1. Councillors democratically approve an order to restrict parking
2. Officers draft that order but cock it up
3. The cock-up is discovered when a fine is challenged
At no stage would there be any intent to defraud. The council certainly thought it was acting properly; the officer thought he was drafting the order properly; and when the cock-up was discovered the council stopped attemting to impose fines. No intent; just one man failing to do his job properly.

 

[maureenandtom]

Quote

"We have used warning notices to act as a deterrent . . ."

End of Quote

 

[AndyC]

Quote

"We have used warning notices to act as a deterrent . . ."

End of Quote

Of course they will put up warning notices to 'act as a deterrent', i.e. to deter people from contravening the parking regulations.

I suspect that whoever authorised the notice assumed that the standard penalty would apply to any breach of the regulations. Unfortunately, for the council, the TRO has been badly drafted and the standard penalty does not apply to all contraventions.

It does seem to me to be a slightly unusual case, I don't think I've seen any other TROs where penalties are not applicable to all contraventions. I'll have to study them more closely!

AndyC

 

[maureenandtom]

Thanks Andy, and John too.

I'm not sure that it is all that unusual. It's true that I know of only one very similar case and in that one the council backed down and removed the fabricated offence. I'd like to know what they did here.

If there are two then it is possible there are more. I think it probable that there are more. My opinion - not a fact that I can prove.

 

[vwalan]

but have they took money fromanyone before it was found out. we dont know . hope they returned it if they have otherwise that gets very close to theft. like i say they make a mistake its nothing but a mistake . we make one get punished. they not only take money under the wrong order but waste public money financing the incorrect sign etc. bet it cost hundreds in paper work and administration . there is no excuse. not fit for purpose . sack someone. cheers alan.