Kingston Council parking fines wording judged 'unsuitable'

Surrey Comet: Unsuitable: Wording on Kingston Council parking tickets was rejected Unsuitable: Wording on Kingston Council parking tickets was rejected

Kingston Council collected more than £8.7m in parking fines using wording now deemed unsuitable by parking adjudicators.

The wording used on the tickets was found not to comply with legislation at a hearing at the Parking and Traffic Appeals Service.

Adjudicator Kevin Moore cancelled a penalty charge notice (PCN) handed out in April and said: “I am satisfied that the PCN is non-compliant in that it does not correctly state and follow regulations.”

Mr Moore called the imprecise wording on the ticket, defining the last day on which a half-price fine could be paid, a “procedural impropriety”.

About 214,000 tickets issued between August 2008 and July this year used the phrase, “before the end of the period of 28 days”, whereas parking regulations say, “not later than the last day of the period of 28 days”.

The fines total was revealed by a freedom of information (FOI) request made by parking campaigner Albert Herbert.

Mr Herbert said: “Why councils cannot simply copy and paste from the legislation what is required to be contained within the text of the PCN is beyond comprehension.

“Clearly, this wording affects thousands of tickets issued since 2008.”

A separate FOI request revealed the council changed the tickets’ phrasing in the first week of November.

A spokesman for Kingston Council said it did not comment on individual cases.

Comments (12)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

11:51am Wed 18 Dec 13

cmjdurkin2012 says...

What does this mean for those of us who have been caught out? I have been caught twice picking my girlfriend up from work around midnight as it is far safer than her walking and catching the bus?
What does this mean for those of us who have been caught out? I have been caught twice picking my girlfriend up from work around midnight as it is far safer than her walking and catching the bus? cmjdurkin2012

12:21pm Wed 18 Dec 13

DB says...

Albert Herbert's question seems very valid here - why would the council make up their own woring rather than directly copying the legal documentation?

They know that these adjuticators are out to prove their worth by picking up on the minutiae so they need to be a bit more careful.
Albert Herbert's question seems very valid here - why would the council make up their own woring rather than directly copying the legal documentation? They know that these adjuticators are out to prove their worth by picking up on the minutiae so they need to be a bit more careful. DB

12:22pm Wed 18 Dec 13

DB says...

cmjdurkin2012 wrote:
What does this mean for those of us who have been caught out? I have been caught twice picking my girlfriend up from work around midnight as it is far safer than her walking and catching the bus?
It sounds to me like an £8.7m error has been made and you are one of the beneficiaries.

Good luck.
[quote][p][bold]cmjdurkin2012[/bold] wrote: What does this mean for those of us who have been caught out? I have been caught twice picking my girlfriend up from work around midnight as it is far safer than her walking and catching the bus?[/p][/quote]It sounds to me like an £8.7m error has been made and you are one of the beneficiaries. Good luck. DB

6:47pm Wed 18 Dec 13

Nigel Wise says...

Here we have a classic case of an 'authority' that has been deriving income by illegal means whilst falsely purporting to be upholding the law. The correct legal wording that should appear on a PCN is well known to all local authorities including Kingston. They obviously used their own unlawful wording so that they would be able to catch people out and thereby derive more income.

Now it is them who have been caught with their pants down they should pay the penalty themselves and repay all of the motorists that have been unlawfully fined by them.

The example was set by Lord True the leader of neighbouring borough Richmond upon Thames after I established that there had been unlawful enforcement carried out for over two years. Refunds were made to ALL of the unlawfully penalised motorists. Heads should also roll in the parking department at Kingston.

Well done Mr Herbert. People like you that stand up to these unlawful demands deserve an award from the public purse.
Here we have a classic case of an 'authority' that has been deriving income by illegal means whilst falsely purporting to be upholding the law. The correct legal wording that should appear on a PCN is well known to all local authorities including Kingston. They obviously used their own unlawful wording so that they would be able to catch people out and thereby derive more income. Now it is them who have been caught with their pants down they should pay the penalty themselves and repay all of the motorists that have been unlawfully fined by them. The example was set by Lord True the leader of neighbouring borough Richmond upon Thames after I established that there had been unlawful enforcement carried out for over two years. Refunds were made to ALL of the unlawfully penalised motorists. Heads should also roll in the parking department at Kingston. Well done Mr Herbert. People like you that stand up to these unlawful demands deserve an award from the public purse. Nigel Wise

7:42pm Wed 18 Dec 13

EurfylJohn says...

People should write and demand their money back Remember these are tickets issued to the driver or placed on the vehicle. Give them 7 days or threaten to sue them at the small claims court.
People should write and demand their money back Remember these are tickets issued to the driver or placed on the vehicle. Give them 7 days or threaten to sue them at the small claims court. EurfylJohn

7:50pm Wed 18 Dec 13

EurfylJohn says...

Nigel Wise wrote:
Here we have a classic case of an 'authority' that has been deriving income by illegal means whilst falsely purporting to be upholding the law. The correct legal wording that should appear on a PCN is well known to all local authorities including Kingston. They obviously used their own unlawful wording so that they would be able to catch people out and thereby derive more income.

Now it is them who have been caught with their pants down they should pay the penalty themselves and repay all of the motorists that have been unlawfully fined by them.

The example was set by Lord True the leader of neighbouring borough Richmond upon Thames after I established that there had been unlawful enforcement carried out for over two years. Refunds were made to ALL of the unlawfully penalised motorists. Heads should also roll in the parking department at Kingston.

Well done Mr Herbert. People like you that stand up to these unlawful demands deserve an award from the public purse.
They have two options: pay back or use the statutory process and apply for a review. To do the latter they have 14 days from receipt of the decision.
[quote][p][bold]Nigel Wise[/bold] wrote: Here we have a classic case of an 'authority' that has been deriving income by illegal means whilst falsely purporting to be upholding the law. The correct legal wording that should appear on a PCN is well known to all local authorities including Kingston. They obviously used their own unlawful wording so that they would be able to catch people out and thereby derive more income. Now it is them who have been caught with their pants down they should pay the penalty themselves and repay all of the motorists that have been unlawfully fined by them. The example was set by Lord True the leader of neighbouring borough Richmond upon Thames after I established that there had been unlawful enforcement carried out for over two years. Refunds were made to ALL of the unlawfully penalised motorists. Heads should also roll in the parking department at Kingston. Well done Mr Herbert. People like you that stand up to these unlawful demands deserve an award from the public purse.[/p][/quote]They have two options: pay back or use the statutory process and apply for a review. To do the latter they have 14 days from receipt of the decision. EurfylJohn

11:48am Fri 20 Dec 13

Mind the gap says...

Here is a very simple solution to the problem. Don't park illegally and you won't get a PCN. Its not that difficult is it?. It's almost as if people are incapable of walking more than 5mins these days, they have to park as close to their destination as possible then blame the council when they get a ticket. I have someone at the end of my road who drives to the Gym at the other end of the same road, waits on a double yellow for a parking space so they don't have to walk to the gym.
Here is a very simple solution to the problem. Don't park illegally and you won't get a PCN. Its not that difficult is it?. It's almost as if people are incapable of walking more than 5mins these days, they have to park as close to their destination as possible then blame the council when they get a ticket. I have someone at the end of my road who drives to the Gym at the other end of the same road, waits on a double yellow for a parking space so they don't have to walk to the gym. Mind the gap

11:55am Fri 20 Dec 13

DTEJ says...

The two phrases mean the same thing and have no bearing whether the car in question was parked illegally. It seems silly to encourage frivolous claims like this where there isn't a question over the fairness of the penalty itself.
The two phrases mean the same thing and have no bearing whether the car in question was parked illegally. It seems silly to encourage frivolous claims like this where there isn't a question over the fairness of the penalty itself. DTEJ

11:55am Fri 20 Dec 13

EurfylJohn says...

Mind the gap wrote:
Here is a very simple solution to the problem. Don't park illegally and you won't get a PCN. Its not that difficult is it?. It's almost as if people are incapable of walking more than 5mins these days, they have to park as close to their destination as possible then blame the council when they get a ticket. I have someone at the end of my road who drives to the Gym at the other end of the same road, waits on a double yellow for a parking space so they don't have to walk to the gym.
You are missi=ng the point: councils have to have their paperwork in order. The person who parked in your described situation did so deliberately. Furthermore, council should not publish or disseminate enforcement policies which are wrong or outdated or misleading. This is not "blaming" the council. If the council makes errors, it is called a "procedural impropriety" and this is a statutory ground of appeal. Still. only about 1% of motorists know this which is why councils never change their wording and get away with unjust enrichment. You may also wish to know that PATAS consists of a bunch of adjudicators who act inconsistently.
[quote][p][bold]Mind the gap[/bold] wrote: Here is a very simple solution to the problem. Don't park illegally and you won't get a PCN. Its not that difficult is it?. It's almost as if people are incapable of walking more than 5mins these days, they have to park as close to their destination as possible then blame the council when they get a ticket. I have someone at the end of my road who drives to the Gym at the other end of the same road, waits on a double yellow for a parking space so they don't have to walk to the gym.[/p][/quote]You are missi=ng the point: councils have to have their paperwork in order. The person who parked in your described situation did so deliberately. Furthermore, council should not publish or disseminate enforcement policies which are wrong or outdated or misleading. This is not "blaming" the council. If the council makes errors, it is called a "procedural impropriety" and this is a statutory ground of appeal. Still. only about 1% of motorists know this which is why councils never change their wording and get away with unjust enrichment. You may also wish to know that PATAS consists of a bunch of adjudicators who act inconsistently. EurfylJohn

11:58am Fri 20 Dec 13

EurfylJohn says...

DTEJ wrote:
The two phrases mean the same thing and have no bearing whether the car in question was parked illegally. It seems silly to encourage frivolous claims like this where there isn't a question over the fairness of the penalty itself.
So, if you believe your opinio to be better than Mr Moore's decision, why don't you contact the council and advise them to seek a review of the said decision?
[quote][p][bold]DTEJ[/bold] wrote: The two phrases mean the same thing and have no bearing whether the car in question was parked illegally. It seems silly to encourage frivolous claims like this where there isn't a question over the fairness of the penalty itself.[/p][/quote]So, if you believe your opinio to be better than Mr Moore's decision, why don't you contact the council and advise them to seek a review of the said decision? EurfylJohn

1:49pm Sat 21 Dec 13

bosco1 says...

If you have paid a fine thats not correct in its wording seek out a good solicitor who may like to sue the council get your money back and costs to include time, stress etc.!! In Bournemouth the wording on the ticket machines was incorrect and they got caught and had to repay motorists, So go for it.!!
If you have paid a fine thats not correct in its wording seek out a good solicitor who may like to sue the council get your money back and costs to include time, stress etc.!! In Bournemouth the wording on the ticket machines was incorrect and they got caught and had to repay motorists, So go for it.!! bosco1

6:30pm Sat 21 Dec 13

EurfylJohn says...

bosco1 wrote:
If you have paid a fine thats not correct in its wording seek out a good solicitor who may like to sue the council get your money back and costs to include time, stress etc.!! In Bournemouth the wording on the ticket machines was incorrect and they got caught and had to repay motorists, So go for it.!!
I agree but would also advocate a class action suit. If someone has paid the penalty charge (it is not a fine) before the Tribunal stage, a small claims court application would be appropriate. If someone has paid after PATAS, one would need to apply to the High Court for the same reimbursement.
[quote][p][bold]bosco1[/bold] wrote: If you have paid a fine thats not correct in its wording seek out a good solicitor who may like to sue the council get your money back and costs to include time, stress etc.!! In Bournemouth the wording on the ticket machines was incorrect and they got caught and had to repay motorists, So go for it.!![/p][/quote]I agree but would also advocate a class action suit. If someone has paid the penalty charge (it is not a fine) before the Tribunal stage, a small claims court application would be appropriate. If someone has paid after PATAS, one would need to apply to the High Court for the same reimbursement. EurfylJohn

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree